I was active in protesting the Vietnam war until the summer of 1968, when I
left for a teaching assignment in Africa. I attended many protests during that
time, including marches in New York and the one on the Pentagon. I remember
lots of tear gas at the Pentagon, but I never in all my years of protesting
wars came across people wishing to "bloody some noses," at least on the peace
side of things. (I might also mention here that I have never, ever met a
professional protester, since none I have met were paid to do so and all I met
in fact did so at personal and financial sacrifice.)
I have seen violent police action against peace protestors, although I
personally missed the Democratic National Convention in Chicago that summer of
1968. Most accounts I read described it as a police riot ordered by Mayor
Daily. I remember the Kent State shootings.
This is not to say that there hasn't been violence at demonstrations, of
course. In my experience, peace demonstration violence typically falls into
two catagories.
First, there violence by undercover police agents acting as agents
provacateurs, that is using violence or destruction of property while under the
guise of demonstration, usually to provide an excuse for an extreme police
reaction. This was the sort of activity specifically outlawed by the
Minneapolis City Council last week, in the resolution concerning the RNC.
Second, there have been cases of violence by peace protestors against
themselves. I think here of the 5 Buddist monks who self-immolated in Vietnam,
or of Norman Morrison who burned himself to death outside of the office of
Robert MacNamara (which the former Secretary of War mentioned in the film Fog
of War). Or we could even mention the self-immolation protest against the Iraq
war by Malachi Ritcher in Chicago last October.
Naturally, life provides few guarantees. It is quite possible that American
deaths will have doubled by the time the Republicans arrive. It is possible
that the United States will have entered another major war with Iran, or North
Korea, or Syria, or all of them, before our conservative compartiots join us in
2008. It is possible that the draft will have begun again and young people
have quickly become involved in protesting. It is more than possible, it is in
fact quite likely that a huge number of Americans will have become angry that
their leaders don't listen to them when they vote, whether they vote for
Democrats and Republicans. It is possible that any and all of these factors
will have created a more divided, more enraged and more disallusioned America
by September 2008.
So security may be more of a concern by then. It's true.
What I have said all along, however, is that freedom of expression is the
single mechanism which tends most to difuse violent change. If the people are
allowed to express their views loudly and forcefully, and if governments
provide mechanisms to pay attention to the will of the people, then change can
come non-violently. It takes a free press, of course, so that opinions can
become noticed. A completely corporate press tends to manipulate or
marginalize non-official opinions. It takes an electoral process which is fair
and transparent. It takes a campaign process where grassroots opinions at
least stand a chance against the free reign of money and campaign
contributions. But given these conditions, it is quite possible for change to
occur without violent revolution.
A system of state (or even corporate) repression is inherently unstable.
Lacking legitimate outlets and mechanisms for change, the change still occurs.
But it takes a much uglier and bloodier form. Therefore, the plan of police
repression of pre-emptive arrests (as in NYC), caged and tiny protest zones (as
in many places in the past few years), or extensive use of intimidation and
non-lethal weapons (or even lethal ones, as in Kent State) ultimately create
greater violence and less personal security.
It is obviously not in the self-interest of the Republican party to showcase
massive public opposition to their policies. It is also not in the
self-interest of our more corporate city leaders to showcase disagreement and
discord as they attempt to foster good public relations. It IS, however, in
the self-interest of a democracy to allow and even encourage civic expression,
even in disagreement with the state's policies.
Some have used the slogan "Freedom isn't free," and I couldn't agree more.
Loud and noisy protest are the price we pay for living in a democracy.
I am deeply concerned about the possibility of our municipalities giving away
my freedom during this convention. As a good American, I will take it anyway,
since it is not theirs to give. It is my civic duty.