Over at The American Prospect former Fugazi-fan Kevin Mattson has a rather lengthy piece on why protest politics are not a recipie for success these days. I've got a few responses.

First of all -- here's your snark -- Mike and I wrote this about two years ago:

1. Protest had become an impotent act in today's political arena.

Protesters tend to be reactionary and turn more people off of politics than they turn on, and this administration has shown that no matter how large an outcry is heard from the people, it will pursue its own agenda. Millions of people, many of us politically active for the first time, took to the streets on February 15th, 2003, yet the administration, and the media, dismissed us as a "focus group. Protest may still be a necessary activity, but it is no longer an effective means of producing political change.

I don't mind being ahead of the pack, but it would be nice if there were any signs that the professionals were making headway up the learning curve here.

Digby has a more substantive rebuttal to the piece's implicit anti-60s thesis which I suggest reading also, but I have to say I agree with a lot of what Mattson has to say. He's dead-on about not mistaking the times, and very correct in his evaluation of "expressive anti-politics" which "bursts like a flame and then burns out, to be felt only in the heart of the participant while the ruling class, unperturbed, goes on its merry way." Ain't that the truth. I also give a heartfelt second to his call for the development of a new "publc philosophy" on which to base the return of liberalism to America.

However, the rhetorical strategy of attacking modern-day (or 1960s) protest movements without bothering to examine the reasons for their existence or the record of their accomplishments is frankly a cowardly analytical tactic, one far too often employed by centrist "liberals" who for one reason or another seem to feel defensive. I could go into some suppositions as to why this is -- most insiders and think-tankers realize that they are uncool and out of touch and need to justify themselves vis-a-vis groups and individuals who are more popular or culturally resonant -- but that would be missing the point. The point is that you are welcome bash the Yippies for the spectacle of '68, but to do so in good faith you have to admit they were right about Vietnam, and that the Democratic establishment was wrong. Likewise, you're free to quibble with the methods of the Yes Men, but to do so while ignoring the issues they seek to address is intellectually dishonest.

Establishment organs like the Prospect -- who have resources and influence to spare -- and intelligent academic writers like Mattson -- who have the time and knowledge to bring to bear -- need to take the next step. They need to begin concretely engaging with the issues themselves rather than deriding those who are already, albiet hamfistedly, attempting to do so. It's a lot more frightening that critiquing the Yippies and saying we should take a look at what Goldwater's kids have done over the past 40 years (no shit, Sherlock), but at some point you have to take a real step forward from your expressive anti-anti-politics and start making the kind of statements that aren't 100% safe, certain and correct. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.