I hate to say I told you so...
Well, not really. But while the recent spate of immigration protests hasn't managed to push any coherent policy much closer to reality, the demonstrations are seemingly succeeding in one regard: freaking out and mobilizing the opposition.
This is quite the catch-22 for our disgruntled friends: Stage a protest by walking out of your jobs, you could just get fired like a bunch of you did the last time, inconvenience and piss off a bunch of bystanders who possess no ability to affect your desired change and present yourselves to everyone else as a big, ranting pack of illegal ingrates making irrational demands and waving foreign flags to make your status as outsiders as salient as possible so more people will write off your message or decide to actively oppose it. Stage a protest after work, you probably won't get fired, but you'll still do all those other things, plus make yourselves look spineless and insincere for not willing to risk making a consequential statement.
Like it or not, protest, like just about every form of political action, is rarely as simple and direct as the chanting points it must necessarily be reduced to.
Take this op-ed piece by Paul Kane in Thursday's New York Times, arguing that to work out a peaceful solution to the issue of a nuclear-armed Iran, the United States should reinstante a military draft of the nation's young people–of both sexes–with no deferments or exemptions. This, he argues, would send a strong message to the world that America is serious about preventing Iran from building up a nuclear arsenal, and would finally force Americans to make some sacrifices in the "war on terror." Oh yes, and Bush has "little political capital at home to lose at this stage," so now is the perfect time for him to terrify the rest of the world with another show of reckless cowboy military might, thereby taming Iran into peaceful pre-emptive disarmament.
Unfortunately, there are just a few small problems with that logic. Namely, there is no way in hell an exemption-free draft would ever get passed in this country to fight some ethereal "war on terror" on another questionable front. Any lawmaker who even talked about it would not merely commit political suicide, but probably earn himself a political Darwin Award to boot. And if by some miracle such a thing came to pass and the privileged were drafted into uniform, President Bush would stage a teary public confession of every minor misstep he has ever made, renounce Christianity and stop talking like a phony Texas dolt before that army would never see combat.
If any serious policy discussion about reinvigorating the selective service started up, the protest that would blast from every constituency in this country would only serve to make the nation appear less united and less committed to stopping Iran by any means necessary. While protesting against military action by opposing a draft, demonstrations would once again backfire by revealing U.S. threats as toothless and giving Iran incentive to shut down any remaining channels for productive diplomacy and escalate, leaving the military options as the only ones remaining on the proverbial table. It would also drive presidential and Congressional approval down to subterranean depths, making Bush even more desperate to salvage his precious legacy and lawmakers more desperate to secure their re-elections by making another dramatic show of strategic and catastrophic air-power force against this oh-so-convenient new threat.
Suck though it may, to get anything accomplished in contemporary national politics, you can't just shout your righteous cries to the wind and ignore all else to avoid contamination–you need to pay attention to the other side's positions and players and interests if you are to have any hope of figuring out who you should be targeting with your complaints and how to appeal to them successfully.
However fresh or visionary your ideas, they can't bring about any change when you ignore the political reality in which they must necessarily be embedded–not any positive change, at any rate.
And just as an aside, should I be on the Pulitzer Prize committee or what? Congratulations to The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof on winning this year’s award for commentary. (And better luck next year to the ever insightful, inspiring and true humanitarian that is David Brooks.)
"The size and magnitude of the demonstrations had some kind of backfire effect," said John McLaughlin, a Republican pollster who said he was working for 26 House members and seven senators seeking re-election. "The Republicans that are tough on immigration are doing well right now."Immigration protestors are also debating whether to stage another walkout of work and school to demonstrate immigrants' economic and social power.
Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles issued a statement opposing the boycott, saying, "Personally, I believe that we can make May 1 a win-win day here in Southern California: go to work, go to school and then join thousands of us at a major rally afterwards."Well, now there you go–stick it to the system, but only after regular business hours.
This is quite the catch-22 for our disgruntled friends: Stage a protest by walking out of your jobs, you could just get fired like a bunch of you did the last time, inconvenience and piss off a bunch of bystanders who possess no ability to affect your desired change and present yourselves to everyone else as a big, ranting pack of illegal ingrates making irrational demands and waving foreign flags to make your status as outsiders as salient as possible so more people will write off your message or decide to actively oppose it. Stage a protest after work, you probably won't get fired, but you'll still do all those other things, plus make yourselves look spineless and insincere for not willing to risk making a consequential statement.
Like it or not, protest, like just about every form of political action, is rarely as simple and direct as the chanting points it must necessarily be reduced to.
Take this op-ed piece by Paul Kane in Thursday's New York Times, arguing that to work out a peaceful solution to the issue of a nuclear-armed Iran, the United States should reinstante a military draft of the nation's young people–of both sexes–with no deferments or exemptions. This, he argues, would send a strong message to the world that America is serious about preventing Iran from building up a nuclear arsenal, and would finally force Americans to make some sacrifices in the "war on terror." Oh yes, and Bush has "little political capital at home to lose at this stage," so now is the perfect time for him to terrify the rest of the world with another show of reckless cowboy military might, thereby taming Iran into peaceful pre-emptive disarmament.
Unfortunately, there are just a few small problems with that logic. Namely, there is no way in hell an exemption-free draft would ever get passed in this country to fight some ethereal "war on terror" on another questionable front. Any lawmaker who even talked about it would not merely commit political suicide, but probably earn himself a political Darwin Award to boot. And if by some miracle such a thing came to pass and the privileged were drafted into uniform, President Bush would stage a teary public confession of every minor misstep he has ever made, renounce Christianity and stop talking like a phony Texas dolt before that army would never see combat.
If any serious policy discussion about reinvigorating the selective service started up, the protest that would blast from every constituency in this country would only serve to make the nation appear less united and less committed to stopping Iran by any means necessary. While protesting against military action by opposing a draft, demonstrations would once again backfire by revealing U.S. threats as toothless and giving Iran incentive to shut down any remaining channels for productive diplomacy and escalate, leaving the military options as the only ones remaining on the proverbial table. It would also drive presidential and Congressional approval down to subterranean depths, making Bush even more desperate to salvage his precious legacy and lawmakers more desperate to secure their re-elections by making another dramatic show of strategic and catastrophic air-power force against this oh-so-convenient new threat.
Suck though it may, to get anything accomplished in contemporary national politics, you can't just shout your righteous cries to the wind and ignore all else to avoid contamination–you need to pay attention to the other side's positions and players and interests if you are to have any hope of figuring out who you should be targeting with your complaints and how to appeal to them successfully.
However fresh or visionary your ideas, they can't bring about any change when you ignore the political reality in which they must necessarily be embedded–not any positive change, at any rate.
And just as an aside, should I be on the Pulitzer Prize committee or what? Congratulations to The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof on winning this year’s award for commentary. (And better luck next year to the ever insightful, inspiring and true humanitarian that is David Brooks.)
posted by Holly at 1:45 AM
<< Home