Mobs R Us?

There's a direct line connecting the khaki-wearing "citizen" mob sent from Washington by the GOP to stop the 2000 recount in Florida, to the teabaggers dispatched by the corporate front group FreedomWorks to disrupt congressional town halls.

Whether at the beginning of the decade or its end, the loudmouths have the same goal: hiding behind a grotesque version of free speech and free assembly in order to undermine civil discourse and shut down the institutions of democracy.

Here's the hard question: Are they doing anything different from what the left did in the '60s and '70s to stop the Vietnam War?

Back then, more than a few public events were thrown into confusion by agile and vocal protesters, and more than a handful of universities had sand thrown in their gears by occupiers, demonstrators and masters of agitprop.

What's the difference between what happened then, and what's happening now?

The easy answer, which also happens to be true, is that the effort to end American involvement in Vietnam was largely a moral and just deployment of civil disobedience aimed at fighting an immoral and unjust war, while today's right wingers attempting to hijack town halls are largely nutjobs who also believe that Obama is the Kenyan equivalent of the Manchurian Candidate.

But the harder question requires moving one notch upward, thinking at a higher level of abstraction. The same rule ought to apply, whether you agree or disagree with the cause being advanced. From 2001 to 2008, if grassroots Democrats had been as strategically smart, as well organized and well-funded, and as ruthless as Karl Rove's army, what would we have said about efforts to pierce the Bush bubble? "Way to go!" is one phrase that comes to mind.

I'm not talking about what the mainstream media response would have been. As usual, the right would have played the press like a piccolo, and the reporting about muscular liberal activism during the W years would likely have been as naïve and credulous as the way it treated the Swift Boaters. I'm talking instead about the principle involved here -- not how events get deformed and misframed by the media, but how to distinguish protest then from protest now.

Do you have any ideas? Here's my first stab at it: When public debate was shut down by people on my side in the '60s and '70s, I didn't like it then, either.

Follow Marty Kaplan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/martykaplan

Comments

[holman2]

I don't think you can completely take the issue itself away from a discussion of the tactics being used. One man's terrorist is another man's hero. If some German had assasinated Hitler and his henchmen, today he would be universally hailed as a hero, although he would surely not be a hero to all the German people at the time. But Timothy McVeigh, who also was a bomber because he thought that the U. S. govt intentionally killed a lot of people in Waco Tex or for whatever his reasons were is considered by almost everyone to be a mental idiot. So I think that whether or not the cause is actually just matters.I think most would say today that the antiwar movemet was for a just cause.The motive of the protesters, whoever they are, is also important. A lot of the antiwar protestors had nothing to gain, but just felt like the govt was wrong in pursuing the war. On the other hand, the health care protestors strike me as mostly having a personal financial interest at stake. I think if you would know for sure, you would find that most of these people are very happy with their own health care situation, and they want to keep things just as they are. They are afraid they are going to have to pay more under a new plan that would help out other people who don't have it so good as they do. People's motives are important.

[TribunusPlebis]

Marty Kaplan is right to see differences between antiwar protesters in the '60s and '70s, and right-wing anti-Obama protesters today, but he's wrong to see their tactics as the same. It was not agitation for the sake of agitation that drove antiwar protest -- it was a form of organized public speech against the war, intended to remove the legitimacy from the war by showing that it no longer had public consent. And that's why it worked: such a large portion of the American public demonstrated their rejection of the war that after Nixon left, no president could have sustained it. On a scale of the magnitude of civil resistance in American history, anti-Vietnam War protest was not quite at the level of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, or even the women's rights movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but it was very sizable.
In contrast, the disruptions of health-care reform town hall meetings or the tea-bagging parties have been local, occasionally riotous and only intended to make proposed legislation look controversial. There are no serious issues of legitimacy or rights involved. It's only a form of disorderly public conduct, and doesn't come close to qualifying as civil resistance.

[cbat]

Liberal protests of 60/70s were never based on racial hatred and fueld by coporate lobbyist. They were based on ending an injust war or acheiving civil rights, rights which we all benefit from today. You people just do not want to admit these people hate Obama not because of his policies, but because of who he is. If they were so concern with government, where was all these protests during Bush, who raised taxes, but lower taxes for rich, started bank bailouts and had large government spending during his admin, not to mention his lying to get us into war.

Maybe if I did not see signs depicting racial intolerance, I might take the more seriously. What do you think a right wing nut means when they scream Socialist, Muslim terrorist, birthers, Nazi or my favorite "I want my country back" and These are code words. These people would be happy if the rest of American, especially non-white did not exist and they only feel comfortable when somebody who looks like them are in charge, even if this person does not work in their best interest. Hence the reason why whites in poor rural areas without jobs and insurance still vote Republican, their ignorance and hate override common sense,

[hyjanks]

I'm a Viet Nam War infantry veteran who turned 21 in '68 in San Francisco. I participated in several marches and rallies--even the march through San Francisco in '69 which wound up being the largest anti-war parade in our nation's history (more that a police-verified half-million of us crammed into the Polo Fields at Golden Gate Park at the end of the march to hear speakers as diverse as Leonard Nimoy and Wavy Gravy).
I don't know what you guys on the East Coast were doing, but we on the other end of the continent were as peaceful in our dissent as the war was ugly and brutal in its application.
Trying to compare the dissidents of the '60's to the illiterate, Insurance industry programmed morons at Democratic meetings with their constituency is like comparing Bush's intelligence to the collective power of ten Mensa members.

[Rogan]

I think you're right. Ninety-nine percent of the Nam protesters felt like it was an important part of their mission or role to project peace and peacefulness in every sense and on all levels.

[Shirley Fisk]

8/9/09
4:30pm
Ft. Lauderdale, FL

There is no doubt that the "flashmob" has been used for a number of unhealthy purposes: harassing individuals, covers for criminals, etc.
It was only a matter of time before politicians realized how they could use "flashmobs" to their advantage.

[Matt7]

The GOP's attempt to "move into the 21st century"?

[bannorhill]

Ordinary citizen's reaction to "open meeting" packing with Obama supporters to keep opposition from being heard.

For the whole story see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvD76-1Y2CQ&feature=player_embedded

[youknow]

And then there is always the truth, very hard to come by and easily drowned out. Be afraid of Mob rule. It would be much better for the Administration to actually explain what kind of reform they are talking about in plain English. Confusion will bring out the Mob especially when goaded into it by the representatives of corporate America (the Republicans)

[jylnc]

Have any of you asked why the protesters are so mad? Is it because the leadership in Washington tried to railroad legislation through the system during the honeymoon phase without listening to what the public wants and needs. They were not listening to their constituents but instead tried to push it through before anyone realized what is really inside the current legislation. They believe the American people had handed them a mandate to do whatever they wanted, but no, the American people elected them to do their job and it was not a blanket endorsement for all of the programs on the table today.

That is why the public is mad and they don't have to be orchestrated by anyone.

Remember Barack Obama's campaign USED Grass Roots organizations to become President. He had political ambitions and the grass roots organizations were his means to an end. It was perfectly justifiable that he used that method and corporations trying to motivate and encourage grass roots organizations is justifiable, too. It is the same thing and only the progressive left rationalizes and demonizes to suit their bias. The reason they think it is orchestrated is because that is what they do and they hate that the other side is using their strategies. It's funny to see the unions cry foul about death threats. The union members are scared that someone might use their own tactics against them. Hilarious.

[SensibleJoe]

Nonsense. The town hall meetings are a public forum for hearing what the public wants and needs. But for that to happen, people have to speak intelligently and rationally -- not yell, scream, hang effigies, make death threats, rant how the President of the United States is supposedly a "Nazi," a "socialist" and a "non-citizen," or call him the "n" word. Obama's grassroots campaigns were peaceful, polite and productive. The crude behavior of these "protesters" is disturbing the peace, disrupting the democratic process and obstructing the constitutional right of American citizens to assemble peaceably and engage in dialogue with their elected representatives in government.

[landstar]

Like the often heralded antics of CodePink, Cindy Sheehan, 'Revs'. Wright/Jac­kson/Sharp­ton, PETA, ELF, etc...? Just saying, I think jylnc is right.

[Matt7]

1. Protestors aren't the only ones who are angry. Many Americans are broke and frustrated, and are looking for ways to reduce their costs; including their healthcare. Some just manage to handle that outrage in more mature ways than others.

2. One of the purposes of the town halls was to listen to what Americans want and need. Had "they" wanted to "ram" legislation through, they could have done it. Without additional public input. So-called protestors are making this "hearing from the public" phase difficult. And they're proud of the obstruction.

3. GOP "representatives" offered no plausible alternative plan. Indeed many had not even thoroughly examined the bill(s), except to find phrases and concepts to use to slow down and/or defeat O.b.a.m.a.­, and now, failing the "final blow" they'd desired, they're feeding those phrases and half-truths to their constituents and "releasing the hounds" so to speak.

4. Organizing techniques have been employed for decades. GOP supporters seemingly just discovered the word "grassroots" in recent months. After ridiculing O at the RNC with the term "community organizer" ::said with a snarl::, now it's somehow "noble" that righties are utilizing the strategy. As usual, very disingenuous.

The reason the efforts are "thought" to be orchestrated is the many memos and flyers instructing participants how to disrupt the gathering. If you didn't get paid, that's not the Dem's fault.

[PatRM]

There are no doubt many reasons why the mob is mad. Usually a mob isn't happy. Anyway, whether they are happy, mad, or just really riled, they are disrupting. Yes, the 60's had it's disrupters, but I find it hard to see a parallel between protesting war and protesting having a change which will insure people. If the right wing does, well, that isn't surprising. They voted Bush into office for TWO, I repeat TWO terms.

[Eoin45]

"Have any of you asked why the protesters are so mad?" I have. It's because they're largely ignorant, ill-informed swallowers of the fear based lying propaganda being perpetrated by the big pharmaceuticals. That this is a grass roots movement is patent nonsense. Most protestors couldn't tell you what socialism or facism is if their life depended on it. At one rally the protestors were asked "How many of you are against government health care?' All raised their hands. Then they were asked "How many of you are on Medicare?". Half raised their hands. That's the level of ignorance. I'm not saying that the majority aren't decent people. What i am saying is that big money with a vested interest in the status quo is cynically using them to vote against their own best interest. The public that voted for Obama knew exactly what they wanted and needed. It's you that doesn't. You being duped into voting against your own good, Now that's hilarious.

[jbatch]

There are two critical differences: Recourse and revocability. In the 60's and 70's young men were sent to a war which most of them could not have voted on -- in short, they had no recourse. Even those who were over 21 -- the legal voting age then -- were too young when the US was comitting to war.

Being asked to scarfice your life for a cause you were excluded from considering is quite different from facing the prospect of receiving medical care in a different way when you DO have a say in the policy.

You can't make appeals to the justness of the cause -- one man's nut job is another's prophet. But you can distinguish between how one is justified in responding to life and death issues in which one had no say, and how one responds to matters of convenience in delivery of health care in which you have a say.

The tea-baggers and corporate shills who break up town hall meetings have a recourse - they can vote their representative out, and vote for someone who would restore the costly, low quality care they seem to love. Viet Nam age young men and the woman who loved them, did not have that recourse. Moreover, they faced death -- and there's no do-overs on death. Unlike changing the method of health care, death is irrevocable, and therefore we were justified in taking what action we could.

Those are the elements that make the difference: recourse

[research]

Civil disobedience to stop wars, or old growth clear cutting are done in non-threatening and completely non-violent manner. We even trained in non-violence before the actions.

These corporate storm troopers are perfectly welcome to the meetings if they will be civil.

24T$ to the Banksters in 2 years, 500B to main street of 10 years. record unemployment,

The plutocrats power has increased 50-100 times in two years. They can buy anything: people, congress, judges, killers, "protesters".

There IS NO EQUIVALENCE TO THE 60's Peace movement.

There is, however, great danger.

Should we fair minded people confront these GOP covert operatives posing as protesters in physical brawls? Already the Corporatist cheerleaders are screaming fowl against the unions, doesn't matter what the particulars are. The Plutocrats have Blackwater and subversives in every level of government. All they need is a pretext for marshal law and a coup.

When Maddow and Keith identify these covert GOP saboteurs publicly, we do far more damage to the conservatives, and we stay out of their brutal traps. So everyone get video of every event. Use the police for security. Make attendees sign an oath to the constitution before entering, let them try to spin that with their loyalty oaths. Carefully peel off the sincere, the dupes from the provocateurs.

Hearts and Minds.

[InspiredByTruth]

The Vietnam protests were about opposition to a defined government policy, not an attempt to prevent others from their own political freedom and expression. A better comparison would be the Jenna 6, where huge angry mobs tried to stop blacks from integrating, or when the KK.K formed to try and scare blacks from voting, or the lynch mobs of the south who literally did lynch blacks in an attempt to intimidate others from political activism. These healthcare mobs are deliberately trying to use fear and intimidation to prevent others from political activism and expression (in this case, a public Q&A with their elected officials) - absolutely no comparison to the vietnam protests.

[weatherwaxx]

I don't recall people in the 60's issuing death threats to people they disagreed with, or stopping the vote counts during elections.

You are comparing protestors to stormtroopers. They're not the same thing.

[PDXPLT]

I've been thinking the same thing, and one doesn't have to go all the way back to the 60's and 70's for examples on the left.

With the town hall disruptions, the objective is not merely to voice a dissenting opinion, it's to disrupt and obstruct the proceedings entirely. We call them a mob of corporate patsies, and that's bad. However, when some of us on the left do similar things, it's called "direct action", and is lauded. Don't like the WTO? Forget about merely voicing displeasure, try to prevent the meeting from happening, and try to break into the convention center. At least the town hall disrupters have the guts to show their faces. Don't like it that the courts said that logging sale can go through? Heck, forget about the law and due process, head to the forest.

But, wait it's said, our causes are morally right, and theirs aren't. Says who? The town hall mobsters would claim they are.

[jeffnva]

"Don't like the WTO? Forget about merely voicing displeasure, try to prevent the meeting from happening, "
Hang on... the shut down of the WTO happened as it did because for years there was no representation other than corporate or government. Displeasure was voiced for a long time - at the lack of information and lack of access. Rules were being drawn up that would fundamentally alter the treatment of goods and services and which would eliminate national and local standards. Concerned critics, representing many millions of people, were offered no chance to express their views or have any input.

[PDXPLT]

That's your rationalization. The other side would say: like all treaties, the WTO was ratified in the U.S. Senate by an overwhelming supermajority of our elected senators, and signed by our democratically elected president. No chance to express their views or have any input? Hardly; the opportunity is there at every election. Our elected officials can pull out of the treaty whenever they wish. But it passed, by a margin larger than the stimulus bill, and continues to be supported.

But that's not good enough for a minority on the left. They know better than the rest of the population, and reserve for themselves the right to disrupt proceeding because they think they know better. Those on the right would argue they're doing the same thing, for equally righteous reasons. Both of these factions express a fundamental lack of faith in, and disrespect for, our democracy.

[tallturtle]

I'm with the ACLU on this one. The answer to free speech is more free speech. If someone goes to a town hall because he or she wants to get information on health care reform, he should feel free to say so. If someone is shouting down a speaker, the person who wants to hear the speaker should express his displeasure, as loudly as necessary.

[pterack5]

to compare these creeps to the anti war movement of the 60's is a insult, . .

[YellerBar37]

When I was growing up and wanted to do something my parents disapproved of, I would tell them that my friends were allowed to do that. They would reply: If your friends jumped into the river (which ran through town) and drown, would I want to do that too? The point is that just because someone else did something, that is no excuse for me to do the same thing. So what if people of the left protested the Vietnam war with mob like activities. That was wrong then and just because they did protested in that manner, doesn’t excuse the present day right wing mobs disrupting town halls. What is wrong, it wrong. Period.

[coastalcarla]

In the 60's, disruptive people got arrested. How many of these angry senior citizens disrupting the town halls are getting arrested?

[RepublicansforTalibans]

Our journalism is just pathetic, no longer ruled by facts but by op eds and greed.