Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Everything wrong with the "Uncommitted" movement

superrific said:
They don't have leverage, period. In political science, I believe the term is "pariah group." It's like socialists. Politicians can't be seen endorsing socialism to gain socialist votes, because they will lose far more votes in the middle (the problem with the Bernie Sanders campaigns and generally the problem with embracing that label if you want to be president).

All they can do is wreck things. They will either vote for Kamala, in which case what was the point? Or they won't vote for Kamala, which means nobody will ever care about them again (if Kamala wins despite their lack of support, they will have demonstrated their impotence; if she loses, they will be rightly despised by Dems everywhere). Or they can make a lot of noise, make swing voters identify Kamala with radical protests that people generally hate, and then what?

What they won't get is Kamala changing her position at all -- not publicly at least. Especially now. It will look like she is kowtowing to the radical left. Giving them anything would be validating Trump's incoherent and ridiculous rants about "RADICAL LEFT DEMOCRATS."

It is so frustrating because we've seen this play out before. How much leverage did the Green Party and Ralph Nader get after 2000? None. None more leverage. In fact, the Naderites just faded away and Nader's '04 campaign was ignored and inconsequential. How much leverage did the Green Party get after 2016? None. How much leverage did the antiwar protesters get after 1968? Well, I suppose you could say, "some" given McGovern's nomination in 72. So instead of wrecking one election they wrecked several.
Click to expand...
You also should have led with "I don't understand protests...."
 
Paine said:
All due respect, your politics are rooted in a different age than the one we’re currently in, and I don’t think your examples are apt comparisons.

Your post tells me you simply misunderstand the protestors’ goals. Many of them will vote for Kamala, which apparently you can’t fathom. How could they protest her and vote for her?

If the anti-genocide movement is silent, there is NO ONE in this country who will speak out for the Palestinians. I know that you know that Democrats would love to avoid the topic altogether.
Click to expand...
1. My politics is rooted in the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s. I do not think so much has changed. I certainly haven't seen anything in today's politics that is unfamiliar to me. Trump and social media have changed things to some extent, but it's lazy to say, "you're old, you don't get it."

2. I was commenting on the specific interview I posted, and in particular the last paragraph of that interview when the organizer of the uncommitted movement expressly stated her motivations. And she said very clearly that she won't encourage people to vote for Kamala unless there's a change of position.

3. There are plenty of people who will speak out for the Palestinians. In fact, many have. On the ZZLP, there were arguments raging. Dozens of posters were made plenty aware of what was happening.

There were protests all through the streets of many cities last year. Peaceful protests, tinged with some anti-Jewish harassment, but overall enough to raise everyone's awareness.

4. These protesters are the ones who don't get it. Israel handed them the public relations victory on a platter. The entire world was sympathetic to the victims in Gaza. And then these lunatic radicals started burning American flags, shouting Hamas slogans, whatever. Maybe Iran is paying them, who knows.

The goal of any protest movement is, first and foremost, to connect with people. You have to make it seem like your cause is their cause. Look at how the civil rights movement did it. They knew it wouldn't be easy to recruit white people to protest on behalf of black people. So instead, they framed the movement as an integral part of the American dream. They were asking white people to protest on behalf of America, on behalf of our ideals of freedom and equality.

There weren't nearly as many gay rights protests, especially in the 1980s -- in part because they didn't need protests per se. They just started coming out of the closet, and encouraging other gay people to come out, and then everyone could see that gay people were their friends, family and neighbors. So the movement for gay rights sold its underlying proposition as don't hate your neighbors just because who they love and also a bit of the protest on behalf of America.

Protest movements need to get the public to identify with their cause.

The Palestinian protest movement has done exactly the opposite. It has repelled people. It has made people think, "gee, I guess my options are support Israel or support Hamas" and anyone with a brain knows how Americans are going to come out on that. And to make it worse, the protesters are acting like terrorists. "Uncommitted" is the political equivalent of suicide bombing.
 
Paine said:
The things you’re saying about the “Palestinian protest movement” repelling people is the same argument that people made against the movements you cite.

There were plenty of white people who didn’t support civil rights because they thought some protestors were radical.

You also seem to be unaware of the full history of the movements you cite, considering you only talk about certain groups within those movements. Again, they aren’t monoliths.

What is your recommended method for anti-genocide protestors to get the public on their side?
Click to expand...
I'm aware of the white people who thought the movement was too radical. That was always going to be the case. It would have failed had it not managed to appeal to a lot more white people than the ones who were being addressed in Letter from Birmingham.

Protesting against Israel should be a lot easier. It's not asking anyone to give up advantages they enjoyed. It's not asking anyone to purge the hatreds or prejudices on which they were raised. It supports a cause that should be the easiest thing in the world -- stop killing innocent people and making them starve. And the protest movement has completely failed at that. The momentum is back in the Israelis court and the Palestinian cause is quickly becoming radicalized and less popular.

I'm not an expert on national protest movements, but the approach I would take would be something like, "we're better than this. Israel is better than this. Never in our history have we willingly backed a country willing to starve innocent civilians and we shouldn't start now." That last bit isn't exactly true, because Cold War policy backed a lot of bad dudes. But who cares? What are the Israelis going to do? Draw a comparison between them and support for the government that invaded East Timor?

That would be my approach. Militancy is stupid in this position.
 
superrific said:
1. My politics is rooted in the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s. I do not think so much has changed. I certainly haven't seen anything in today's politics that is unfamiliar to me. Trump and social media have changed things to some extent, but it's lazy to say, "you're old, you don't get it."

2. I was commenting on the specific interview I posted, and in particular the last paragraph of that interview when the organizer of the uncommitted movement expressly stated her motivations. And she said very clearly that she won't encourage people to vote for Kamala unless there's a change of position.

3. There are plenty of people who will speak out for the Palestinians. In fact, many have. On the ZZLP, there were arguments raging. Dozens of posters were made plenty aware of what was happening.

There were protests all through the streets of many cities last year. Peaceful protests, tinged with some anti-Jewish harassment, but overall enough to raise everyone's awareness.

4. These protesters are the ones who don't get it. Israel handed them the public relations victory on a platter. The entire world was sympathetic to the victims in Gaza. And then these lunatic radicals started burning American flags, shouting Hamas slogans, whatever. Maybe Iran is paying them, who knows.

The goal of any protest movement is, first and foremost, to connect with people. You have to make it seem like your cause is their cause. Look at how the civil rights movement did it. They knew it wouldn't be easy to recruit white people to protest on behalf of black people. So instead, they framed the movement as an integral part of the American dream. They were asking white people to protest on behalf of America, on behalf of our ideals of freedom and equality.

There weren't nearly as many gay rights protests, especially in the 1980s -- in part because they didn't need protests per se. They just started coming out of the closet, and encouraging other gay people to come out, and then everyone could see that gay people were their friends, family and neighbors. So the movement for gay rights sold its underlying proposition as don't hate your neighbors just because who they love and also a bit of the protest on behalf of America.

Protest movements need to get the public to identify with their cause.

The Palestinian protest movement has done exactly the opposite. It has repelled people. It has made people think, "gee, I guess my options are support Israel or support Hamas" and anyone with a brain knows how Americans are going to come out on that. And to make it worse, the protesters are acting like terrorists. "Uncommitted" is the political equivalent of suicide bombing.
Click to expand...
As much as you framed that as “this isn’t about me being old and resistant to change,” it definitely is coming off that way.
 
The Civil Rights Movement needed both Malcolm AND Martin in order to succeed. At the same time, one of the primary issues with contemporary protests is that they lack an iconic figurehead.
 
superrific said:
Really? I organized many protests back in my college days. I worked on politics at all levels -- local, state and national. I think I understand the idea.
Click to expand...
You’re not coming across as someone who understands the ideas behind protests, and the tactics used and why.
 
sringwal said:
As much as you framed that as “this isn’t about me being old and resistant to change,” it definitely is coming off that way.
Click to expand...
I don't think there was any time in my life, after turning 20, where I would have supported this. I really don't think this is about me being old. Plus, I'm less than 50 so it's not like I'm some old boomer.

The problem is whether protest movements are effective when they make people hate them. Has that changed? I don't think so. I'm certainly not seeing any effectiveness. I see a bunch of "uncommitted" activists banging their heads against the wall because they are getting nowhere, and continuing to make threats.
 
Paine said:
Like I said earlier, the left has deliberately moved away from these iconic figureheads. The two you mentioned were famously assassinated.
Click to expand...
I mean, I get your point, but part of what made the 1960s successful was the belief that “risking injury, or even loss of life, is worth it if it means a better life for others.”
 
Paine said:
I think it’s impossible to make a historical determination about the Civil Rights Movement, the Abolition Movement, etc. would have played out without their moderate and radical elements all combined.

Not to mention the fact that the movement for racial justice is far from over, and the more recent protests have taken on forms that you would probably denounce.

History is a weird thing. John Brown’s radicalism did lead to the freeing of the slaves in America. There’s a lot of factors that go into these things.

Are there elements of the pro-Palestine protests that have been radical? Sure, I guess. There are also elements that aren’t and are calling for exactly what you say. Yet you lump them all together. That plays into the right wing framing that Republicans and Netanyahu want.

Though, your example of a radical here seems to be someone who wants their government to stop sending weapons to a genocidal right-wing government. She should rightfully feel conflicted about telling someone to vote for that. That’s not radical. It’s definitely not “militant.”

How is this individual going to stop a rando from burning an American flag? And why should she be forced to condemn someone who does as if she’s somehow responsible for that?

Your proposal would ring incredibly hollow considering the fact that we currently support governments other than Israel who starve children.
Click to expand...
Let's put it this way. I'm exactly the type of person who the protest should be reaching. I'm incredibly sympathetic to the suffering in Gaza. I loathe the Israeli right-wing. I loathe the violence unleashed by Israel not only in this specific conflict, but also during "peacetime" over the past decade or so -- especially on the West Bank. And yet they aren't reaching me. They just make me frustrated.

This person isn't going to stop a rando, but I'd be willing to bet that the person has not criticized any of it. In any event, this person basically stated for the record that she will not support Kamala unless Kamala adopts a different position. I've noticed that you haven't actually defended that. You've just attacked me for being vague in posts that are even vaguer.
 
Paine said:
I think people in modern left movements are willing to risk their lives, and you can see that in the BLM protests. They’re just not willing to see the entire movement collapse because the FBI was able to kill their figurehead.
Click to expand...
But without said figurehead, or figureheads (because it was a lot more than those to), you can’t build something enough for the risk of collapse to matter. People, identify with individuals, and their stories. Groups sans leaders are viewed, wrongly in this case, like unruly and disorganized mobs. You need a unifying message, and you need a unifying core group of people who others will listen to. We saw this some after Parkland. I’m not really seeing that here.
 
The leaders of the Civil Rights Movement were demonized, and many people felt that Martin Luther King being the lead speaker at the March on Washington was disrespectful to A Philip Randolph, John Lewis, and Bayard Rustin, among others. But people have to get over those fears if they legitimately want change. The masses need to see risk, and they need to see personalities, if they are going to be moved. You need that, and you probably need one of those leaders to give an iconic speech, or at least series of speachlits.
 
Paine said:
A big part of it is legitimacy, and we don’t really have the organizations to pull these leaders from anymore. If there is no organization that can legitimately claim to represent the people on a certain issue, it’s hard for someone to stand out as a leader.

Even still, there have been folks who have spoken out, like Rashida Tlaib. But I think the media is also motivated to not cover someone like her, since she’s actually a sympathetic figure.
Click to expand...
I think your first point is part of where I’m going with this. A lack of leader. A lack of a clear organization. And I like Tlaib as well, but I think the real leaders that need to emerge can’t be political figures. It makes people question motive.
 
Paine said:
I think the void the left experiences in the US is due to the decline of organized labor. Starting to see that come back a bit with unions like the UAW pushing for a ceasefire.

Unions have democratic legitimacy and actual political leverage.
Click to expand...
As unreligious as I am, a lot of it also came out of both groups of churches and strong inner faith religious organizations.
 
Kamala blunted the effect of the protestors today so it doesn’t seem like much of a problem assuming they ultimately vote for her. I’m sympathetic so I’m ok with them making their voices heard but they will lose my sympathy if they take their protest into the voting booth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top