Welcome to the new Young Americans for Liberty! Learn about the new features or give us your feedback!

Don’t get mad, fight smarter...

Bonnie Kristian
Apr 17, 2009 at 6:48 AM
...says Dan McCarthy at The American Conservative's @TAC blog. Discussing the tax day tea parties, McCarthy contends that rallies and protests with their attendant raw emotional reactions to the issues at hand have the potential to actually work against the liberty movement by disregarding the importance of a rational and reasoned approach to the change which our government so desperately needs, and leading instead to a distraction with more petty sorts of left-right issues:
Already the tea party protests have begun to [be] as much anti-liberal and anti-CNN as anti-tax and anti-spending. The problem here is not that liberals and Democrats aren’t bad and shouldn’t be opposed, but that one must be careful that in opposing them one does not overlook the crimes of the Republicans and the budget-busting militarists of the conservative movement. There’s a deeper defect inherent in the politics of protest. Not only does it a.) often alienate the non-protesting public and b.) encourage a crude right-against-left polarization that masks the real extent of the problem (i.e., that most Democratic pols are also militarists and most Republicans are also big-time deficit spenders), but protest populism also substitutes emotions (especially rage) and symbolism for thought and effective political action. Notice that the neoconservatives of PNAC hardly ever waste their time with street theater. Instead they corral funding and work to shape policy regardless of who is in office. Having the right emotional response to war or taxes is not enough. You must also know how the world works and how you can change it — or prevent others from changing it around you.
McCarthy's argument is not a particularly pleasant or easy one -- particularly, I would suspect, for those still riding a tea party protest high. But his argument is an important one. As McCarthy notes, "[r]allies and emotional exercises have their place in politics," but they are not by themselves "real power." And simple appeals to emotion, while potentially valuable in the short run, are not enough to sustain a real revolution. Read the rest here.
I always see the rallies has just a uplifting thing during the long check of writing letters to government and spreading the word on liberty.
's picture
I saw Jim Wallis speak once. He was awesome, but I thought he was a little focused on the protest aspect himself. When he wants to get arrested, he takes his people and prays in the Capitol dome and makes them drag him out. Sojourners is a bit much for me tho, especially when it comes to their ideas on justice. Social justice in my eyes means the equality to make your own way and prosper, and it isn't done through "moral budgets" that subsidize the poor. But I definitely like the magazine, more than World but less than AmCon. And I can't agree with you enough on Fox News. To differentiate ourselves I think we should give the President a pat on the back when he does something sensible, for example opening up to Iran. I had a post called "Maybe its not all that bad? Part 2" that should have been up by now about Obama's recent interactions with Cuba, which I can only imagine Dr. Paul sees as a step in the right direction.
's picture
Come to think of it, where is that post? I wrote it last night...
's picture
Drew, Yeah, I understand what your saying about Wallis. He is pretty interesting guy, and, despite the fact that I'm not a religious person, "God's Politics" is a really cool book. I appreciate social justice movements because I think many of them are well-intentioned, but the idea of "moral budgets" that you mention are another use of government force - even if they are a more benign form of force than civil liberties violations and war, they can still be destructive. Progressives in general, from my perspective, seem to think government can make things "fair" for everyone, but, as noble in intent as that might be, fair is a relative term and government being fair to one part of society will be ultimately unfair to another - not mention, as my old man was always quick to tell me, "Life's not fair." Bonnie's right in this post, and McCarthy is right in his article. A while back, Dr. Paul was on D.L. Hughley's show on CNN and was asked about the Rush Limbaugh "I hope he fails" controversy and he responded with something to the effect of (and I am paraphrasing here), "Obama says his goals are peace and prosperity and I support that and don't want him to fail but the difference is a philosophical one on how to get there." In a nutshell, that is what is important. Obama, for better or worse, is popular with many people. If our activism devolves into merely attacks on Obama it will cause a backlash from the very people we are trying to influence. In my mind, this isn't about party or personality but principle. And the Fox News/Newt Gingrich/GOP Establishment have no principles.
's picture
next rallies we should protest Neo-conservatism, PNAC, and Fox News!
's picture
Best idea of heard yet Thomas. And Gavin, I don't disagree with you at all, but there can be negative consequences to that if it gets out of hand - or co-opted by hypocrites like Hannity/Newt.
's picture
Damn straight. Progressive Evangelical Minister Jim Wallis, in his book "God's Politics", said, "Protest is fine, solutions are better." McCarthy is absolutely right. We can't just make this anti-Obama/anti-liberal nonsense. I think Fox News, Newt Gringrich, etc. are trying to claim the liberty/small government movements as their weapon of choice with which to bludgeon Obama - when they did everything to destroy it under Bush.
Matt Fay's picture

Very good post, thanks a lot.

's picture