Posted by
RationalGuy on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:21:41 PM
An observation I've made over the last several years is the sharp contrast between the rhetoric of today's protesters and that of Martin Luther King, Jr. Recall MLK's brilliant "I Have a Dream" speech. First, he knew that, to achieve his political goals, it would not be sufficient to preach to the choir, so to speak, but rather that he needed to persuade the masses of reasonable, decent people who either felt some ambivalence over his goals or who agreed with him but did not feel strongly enough about it for it to affect their choices as voters, which was the key to legislative progress. His rhetorical strategy was to establish common ground on shared core values. He invoked the universally revered Declaration of Independence, the principle that "all men are created equal", a principle "deeply rooted in the American dream," making the case that his goals were consistent with that principle, while implicitly demonstrating that opposition to his goals was a violation of one of the most fundamental principles behind the founding of our nation. And, although he did sharply criticize a white governor and others who had violently suppressed peaceful civil rights protesters, he did not condemn white Americans in general; On the contrary, he reached out to them and appealed to their principles, their minds and their hearts. And he warned against "distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone."
Contrast that approach with the rhetoric of most of today's protest rallies at which speakers spew venom at those with opposing views and advocate extreme measures. Case in point: rallies calling for an end to the Iraq war, at which one hears screams for Bush's impeachment and signs calling him a "war criminal", and at which everyone who disagrees is branded as evil, an idiot, or both. Another example: A few weeks ago I personally witnessed a protest demonstration consisting of scores of bicyclists riding down a very busy Manhattan avenue through Times Square, in direct, deliberate violation of city regulations. The cyclists spanned the width of the street, creating a large and growing traffic jam of cars behind them. In addition to causing this inconvenience, they created a risk of serious injury to the many pedestrians in Times Square that night, particularly as some of cyclists scrambled to evade police who were seeking to divert them to a side street and stop the mass ride. These protesters not only anticipated this police intervention, they intended for it to occur as a means of drawing attention to their protest. Those who sought to evade police and who, upon being caught, resisted arrest (including kicking at officers) were held down and cuffed by police as the other protesters surrounded the arresting officers, chanting angrily at the top of their lungs, "FASCIST STATE! FASCIST STATE!" at New York cops who risk their lives every day to protect us, and who were merely enforcing the law as was required of them, and doing so with admirable restraint. This incident was my first impression of an advocacy group of which I had never heard previously. Needless to say, it left me much less likely to listen to the grievances of this group, much less be sympathetic to their cause.
It seems that many of today's protesters are either completely oblivious to any concept of effective rhetorical strategy, or (more likely) they choose the catharsis of venting and receiving enthusiastic peer approval over the achievement of their goals.