In the midst of discussing the Democrats troubled relationship to foreign policy -- really fascinating stuff from/for the insiders -- Ezra at Pandagon drops knowledge how to have a viable opposition to war, you have to have a viable message and a viable vehicle:
...it's really crucial that the anti-war portion of the left begins representing itself better. Moore is absurd and Kucinich, sorry, seems like he's from Mars... the figures leading the charge seem uniformly unfit for PR purposes. As Matt and I have both noted in the past, part of what sent us towards the hawk camp was that, without much historical context for what war means, we simply evaluated the arguments (and sadly, that means the spokespeople) for the two sides. In that calculus, becoming a hawk seemed not just warranted, but unavoidable. That's not fair to the doves and not fair to the Democratic party, and while we (hopefully) won't make the same mistakes again, it's really incumbent that the anti-war wing funds a media savvy opposition (instead of protests organized by subsidiaries of Maoist groups [read: ANSWER]) so future generations aren't turned off by the absurdity of their spokespeople.
Let's amplify this thought. This has always seemed fucking obvious to me, and I said and blogged so even as I was with the protesters. Something that needs to happen in the Anti-War and more uppity Left in America is for people to realize that the '60s aren't coming back. A "protest movement" is an impotent movement.
Conventional (mass) protests do not drive the media cycle, talking heads do, and they are often able to spin the protest event any way they choose. Mass protest are also very poor places to organize people for effective grassroots activism, maybe you make some friends with the people you happen to be stuck there with, but it's not network-friendly. So, without driving the media or growing successful organizations (or achieving anything through direct action, for you real radicals out there) what good do a million people in the streets accomplish? Not a lot. It might be fun for the participants -- and the ritualistic aspect of becoming radicalized via attending a march and getting tear gassed shouldn't be overlooked -- but on the whole the return on investment seems rather low.
Hopefully some of the sage old heads will expand their thinking and realize that focusing with aclarity on grassroots member growth, earned media coverage, and targeted direct action (hopefully non-violent) rather than the general rubric of "protest" will get us a lot further. Of course, my real advice is not to wait on anyone. We can do this ourselves, and if we do it right we will find some places where we can win, and if we win we'll build momentum. Nothing succeeds like success.
