Social movements, governance, democracy, and Egypt

Posted on July 4, 2013 by David S. Meyer

What are we to make of the military coup that the military refuses to call a coup in Egypt?  I’m generally ready to cheer the departure of an unpopular putative theocrat, but quite suspicious of the military deposing elected officials while claiming to act for the good of

Tahrir Square, 2013

the people.  Taken altogether, the past two years of the Arab Spring in Egypt delineate both the power of popular movements, and the severe constraints they face.

The diverse crowds that filled Tahrir Square just over two years ago, in January 2011, forced an autocratic president, Hosni Mubarak, out of office after thirty years, but they didn’t do it on their own.  When Mubarak left it was the military command, not a peoples’ council from the streets, that claimed control of the country, and it was the military that organized elections and forced an unpalatable choice upon the people.  While the images from Tahrir Square may have fed the imaginations of reformers around the world–and in Zuccotti Park, it’s important to remember that the Occupiers weren’t waiting for the military to make decisions and take sides.

Thirteen months ago Mohamed Morsi became Egypt’s first elected president, defeating an opponent from Mubarak’s government, after the military had sifted and sorted a longer list of candidates for office.  The Islamic Brotherhood, which supported Morsi, was one of the stronger and better organized forces in the streets during the revolutionary period–although they certainly didn’t represent the majority of those reformers demonstrating to remake Egypt.  At the same time, Morsi’s election represented a victory for the religious movement.  In office, President Morsi tried, mostly unsuccessfully, to balance conflicting pressures for reform and the interests of his religious party.  His popularity, limited from the outset, unraveled quickly, and many of those who’d taken to the streets two years ago returned to Tahrir Square.

Witnessing disruption and violence in the streets–as Morsi’s supporters fought back–the military leadership again saw the need to intervene in would-be democratic politics.  After President Morsi announced that he would not relinquish power or responsibility in response to the threats of the military, the armed forces seized power, put him under arrest, and commenced clearing his allies out of government, announcing a provisional ruler and elections some time in the future.  For the moment, democratic reformers can cheer the military action, but maybe it’s only a wary half-cheer, a fist pump up not quite so high.

The throngs in Tahrir, both in 2011 and last week, are the spirit and vision of democracy,

Tahrir Square, 2011

but governance is harder and far more complicated; it’s easier to run a movement than a state.  The Muslim Brotherhood, which has actively opposed secular government in Egypt since its founding in 1928, finally gained a chance to make policy as well as politics when President Morsi took office, but Morsi and his allies had been more adept in opposition.  The government couldn’t deliver on the very high expectations it generated and the people who had taken to the streets were unwilling to settle for less and stay quiescent; the military was unwilling to force them to do so.  Egypt is now in a reset mode, with the military firmly in control, the Muslim Brotherhood, understandably, less enthusiastic about working within the system, and democratic reformers willfully hoping for something better than they can realistically expect.

The Arab Spring eruptions of democratic dreamers inspired activists around the world,  but two years later, there aren’t many unambiguous victories to claim.  Most of those challenged survived, and the replacements of those who were toppled have still to prove themselves.  Meanwhile, a terrible civil war continues in Syria.

Everyone wants something better, but there’s no easy transition from bravely marching in the streets to making effective and wise decisions about power, taxes, water, and so many other things, once in power.

Democracy is in the streets?  Maybe, but it can’t be only in the streets and still be democracy.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

How the anti-gay movement faces defeat

Posted on June 26, 2013 by David S. Meyer

Social movement activists lose all the time.  The stalwarts find ways to be more optimistic about the next battle (see Bill McKibben tracking the Keystone pipeline).  Occasional activists and amateurs can pick other issues and redirect themselves to more promising efforts, political or personal.  For the professionals who’ve built reputations–and careers–in a movement that’s losing, recognizing defeat and finding an exit strategy is a little tougher–and it’s all public.

Even before today’s Supreme Court decisions about marriage, the road ahead looked very rough for opponents of same sex marriage.  The change in public opinion, rapid and rooted in demography, makes life particularly difficult for the “traditional marriage movement.”

So, what do you do when you’re losing, and when it looks like it’s going to get worse, not better?

1.  Give up and join the winners.  A few visible national Republicans have publicly changed their minds on same sex marriage, generally describing the conversion as heartfelt, pragmatic, and really conservative.  Rob Portman described two years of coming to terms with the conflict between his position and his gay son’s welfare.  More recently, Lisa Murkowski, whose victory over a Tea Party challenger has afforded her the space to be a truly independent conservative, described her new support for same sex marriage as inspired by a conversation with a lesbian veteran.  Some larger number of people will acquiesce to political reality more quietly.

2.  Change the battleground. Republicans in Congress decried the Court’s decision today, but shifted the political focus to the states.  This is pragmatic in every way, most notably in relieving themselves of doing anything on the issue.

3.  Change the battle.  Last year one-time traditional marriage stalwart, David Blankenhorn, said he saw the writing on the wall about same sex marriage.  Standing up against the flow of history was futile, he said, and even worse, counterproductive.  Blankenhorn had been the spectacularly ineffective expert witness in the federal trial about California’s Proposition 8, unable to cite damage that same sex marriage would do to anyone.  Blankenhorn had a personal story also, developing a friendship and empathy with Jonathan Rauch and his husband as they traveled around the United States debating same sex marriage.  More important, Blankenhorn decided it was more important to engage a larger battle that might be winnable: preserving and strengthening marriage generally.

Ok.

Gay conversion ministry Exodus recently announced plans to shut down, including an apology for damage done from founder Alan Chambers.  Homosexual activity is still a sin, he said, but there are lots of sins, and Christians should try to help and support each other.

4.  Redefine the battle and claim victory.  Young conservative Dana Loesch writes at Red State that the Supreme Court’s decision was a victory for limited government and conservative principles.  It keeps the federal government out of people’s lives, and repudiates a policy, the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton.  Nice juggling.

5.  Dig in and deny.  The National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown described the Court’s decision as the product of corruption.  It’s time to nourish and mobilize the faithful for more struggles, in the public sphere generally, in the states, and in future Court challenges.

We know that Supreme Court decisions don’t generally resolve highly contested issues, and that the losers in a Court case can organize, make significant politics (See the backlash from Brown v. Board of Education or Roe v. Wade), and sometimes, even engineer a reversal over time (see Bowers v. Hardwick).  It’s hard to think it works out for them on this issue, but the groups have to do something.

One strategy is building alternative organizations.  When the Southern Baptists criticized a new Boy Scouts policy that welcomed gay scouts, they urged local churches to form Royal Ambassadors troops as an alternative.

How viable is this?  Over time, it gets harder and harder to avoid being completely marginal, as the distance between the remaining gay marriage opponents and the Westboro church gets smaller and smaller.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Inspiration across borders: Brazil and Turkey

Posted on June 18, 2013 by David S. Meyer

Will a clever name, like Arab Spring or Occupy, link the protests erupting in disparate parts of the globe?  Will 2013 become a sign uniting all of them in memory, just like 1848, 1968, and 1989?

The spread of wildly different movements in very different places makes us wonder about why and how.  People live with grievances and disappointments all the time, only occasionally taking to the streets in dramatic action to try to get what they want.  What makes the protest switch flick on?

Hundreds of thousands of people, most of them young, have taken to the streets of all of Brazil’s major cities in recent days.  The protests started in Sao Paolo, explicitly focused on a relatively small hike in transit fares, but clearly demonstrators saw much more at stake.  Protesters are mad about the poor quality of public facilities, mad about corruption, and mad about massive spending on soccer stadiums to prepare to host the World Cup.  They were angry that President Dilma Rousseff seems to retain sufficient popularity to win reelection next year, in spite of their frustrations–and that there are no apparent channels to influence government that seem meaningful. And once the demonstrations started, the vast majority of them peaceful, they were angry about aggressive policing that included tear gas and rubber bullets.

More than a few demonstrators said they took inspiration from the Turkish demonstrators in Istanbul’s Taksim Square (“standing man” at left), who have been challenging the government of long-standing prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

On the surface, the demands and the contexts seem very different. Demonstrators in Turkey are worried about protecting the secular identity of their Muslim democracy.  Among the litany of complaints in Brazil, incipient theocracy is not one.

But people take inspiration from the very existence of others trying to take action to make their governments more responsive and to better their lives.  Remember, the Occupy demonstrators in Zuccotti Park cited the Egyptian crowds in Tahrir Square as inspiration, even as none of the Occupiers was waiting for the military to take sides and escort a president out of office.  A protest song is a sing-a-long.  And even though the lyrics may be quite different, the tune feels the same, even a little familiar.

By the way, some demonstrators wore the Guy Fawkes mask popularized by Anonymous and Occupy.  When people pick up such symbols of revolt, they invest them with new meanings, their meanings.

When the sufficient tinder is dry, any spark can start a fire.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Just another Moral Monday

Posted on June 17, 2013 by David S. Meyer

Democrats and liberals have been losing in North Carolina.  Democrats lost control of both houses of the legislature in 2010, but Republican legislative efforts were slowed by Democratic Governor Bev Perdue.  In 2012, Republican Pat McCrory soundly defeated Perdue’s lieutenant governor–and Barack Obama lost the state as well.

Once the Republicans had full control of North Carolina’s government, they sought about doing all the things they believed in.  According to state senator Thom Goolsbee (Republican), “Once ensconced in power, the pro-growth, commonsense Republicans went to work like the business people they were.”

This meant cutting unemployment benefits, funding for schools and preschools, implementing Voter ID laws, reducing early voting, and relaxing environmental regulations to encourage fracking.  It meant rejecting federal money to expand Medicaid.  And it means restructuring the state tax code by cutting property and income taxes and relying more on sales taxes.

Having lost at the polls, opponents of this agenda took to the streets, or more accurately, the lawn of the state capitol in Raleigh.  Organized by Rev. Dr. William Barber, president of the NAACP’s state conference, the first protest took place on April 27, including a rally and ending with 17 arrests.  Each week, more people have turned out at the rallies and more people have been arrested.  More than 400 people have been arrested to date.

A large share of the original protesters were clergy or religiously-motivated (see Rev. Barber’s description of the agenda, replete with quotations from Scripture), but as the protests have gone on, the crowd has grown and diversified, and so have the grievances.  The advocates for the poor have been joined by environmentalists, educators, death penalty opponents, and organized labor; they share a common opponent.

The demonstrations are sending a message which starts with “Stop.”  But who’s listening?

With more or less vitriol, Gov. McCrory and the Republican state legislators say that they already know what the protesters think; the governor has refused to meet with them.  Less graciously, some say they are “outside agitators” (note: 98 percent of the arrests have been of North Carolinians) or just “old hippies.”  It’s unlikely that Republican legislative stalwarts will trim their sails because of new information about the issues or the passions of their opponents.

But,

Governor McCrory, who had to be elected by a broader electorate than any of the legislators might–and it doesn’t have to be visible.  In backroom negotiations, he can shape the bills that come to his desk.

Even more significantly, allies and potential allies who are now quiet or less visible can see the amount of support they might be able to mobilize for something else, likely related, in the future.  People who will demonstrate or get arrested are likely to also be people who will work in campaigns, organize communities, sign petitions, or even donate money.

And, in an era where advocates of the poor are just as frustrated as national conservatives are, the protests in Raleigh send out a message that something else is possible.  If Rev. Barber is successful, you’ll see imitations elsewhere–in places even he probably doesn’t expect.

Protests matter, just not always and not by themselves.  They matter when they engage a broad audience and get them to do things in addition to protesting.  Rev. Barber clearly knows this, he says:

The protests are only one part of our four-part strategy. We have a voter registration and voter education strategy, a social media strategy, and we have a legal strategy, because many of these things, not just the voting rules, are going to be challenged in the courts using our state and federal constitutions.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Can the IRS resurrect the Tea Party?

Posted on May 24, 2013 by David S. Meyer

By allowing mid-level bureaucrats to dump on local Tea Party groups, the Internal Revenue Series provided the movement a chance to regroup and re-emerge on the public stage.

Particularly at the grassroots, the Tea Party has mostly severely diminished, divided, and dissolute.  National groups disagree on major candidates, tactics, and issues–like immigration, social values, and foreign policy.  Public support has collapsed in the process, and the Tea Party is less popular than ever.   Tea Partiers remain active in the Washington Beltway, and some visible Republicans claim it as an identity, but they don’t always get along with each other or defining just what the Tea Party means.  Meanwhile, local activists have, uh, moved on…

Ah, but TAXES.  No dispute within the TP on that one.  But the Tax Day rallies staged this year were a shadow of the Tea Party’s heyday.

But then….

The initial revelation of the IRS’s targeting of Tea Party groups made for new energy and a restored unity.  Local groups staged protests this week outside IRS offices in Washington, DC, Los Angeles, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, and across the United States.  The larger rallies generated crowds in the dozens, save for Cincinnati (the site of the key IRS office in the targeting), where activists turned out 250 Tea Partiers.

This may turn out to be a blip, and a little one at that, or it may be the provocation that allows the movement to reunite and reemerge from the church basements, community centers, and kitchen tables where it’s been sequestered.  Focusing on the IRS is the best bet for the movement–and for the national Republican Party–to rekindle the outrage and energy that animated the huge electoral gains in 2010.  For this reason, we expect Congressional Republicans to hold repeated hearings on the IRS–in between sessions of voting to repeal health care reform–again and again.

There’s a bigger movement lesson here: Social movements filled with relatively advantaged people–like peace activists, environmentalists, and Tea Partiers–respond to trouble, provocation, and bad news.  Common outrages paper over differences and give citizens a reason to be more engaged, active, and cooperative with others they don’t necessarily agree with on much of anything else.

Unfavorable policy provides the fertilizer for the grassroots, the grain of sand that produces the pearl, the pebble that makes someone take off his shoe and curse….

Folk Uke (Cathy Guthrie and Amy Nelson) provides additional insight on the general principle:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Immigration divides the Tea Party

Posted on May 21, 2013 by David S. Meyer

Or not?  Conventional wisdom among Republican regulars was that the Party’s harsh “self-deportation” posture was costly in the last election.  Party establishment figures pushed for quick action on immigration reform to put the issue behind them so that they might compete a little more effectively for Latino voters (pulling even 35% would be a huge improvement).

But Republicans held control of the House of Representatives, drawn into districts in which supporting reform could be toxic.

So, there’s a split within the Party, between business conservatives, who support access to labor, and populists at the grassroots who can capitalize on the fears of White voters about the impending loss of….jobs? culture?

The Tea Party holds the same debate.  Most of national Tea Party groups, most notably FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity, like business conservatives and libertarians, support access to immigrant labor–and a less than skeletal welfare state to support them.  [Tea Party Nation, smaller and somewhat marginal, is the notable exception.]

At the grassroots, however, immigration is a hot button issue that gets people to go to meetings, hold signs at demonstrations, contribute money to candidates, and wear silly  colorful outfits.

During the Tea Party’s heyday, 2009-2010, the powerful national groups tried to keep the immigration issue from emerging and dividing.  They weren’t quite successful.

Now Senator Marco Rubio (Florida), who enjoyed extensive and enthusiastic Tea Party support, has tried to front the Republican effort for building a compromise that will lead to an immigration bill.  It’s worth remembering that Senator Rubio’s provenance extends well back before the emergence of the Tea Party.  He had served as Speaker of the House in the Florida’s House of Representatives.  He was always conservative, to be sure, but he was also a pragmatic politician who could count votes and make deals.

In the past few weeks, Senator Rubio and others have tried to build Tea Party support for immigration reform.  At least they wanted to neutralize opposition.  Regardless of what happens to the current immigration reform effort, the percentage of Latinos among the voting universe is going to increase, and  there’s always been at least a racist tinge among the immigration opponents.  The recovered public policy dissertation of Jason Richwine, coauthor of Heritage’s polemical study, is  a recent–and relatively mild–example.

So, leaders from Tea Party Express and other national groups met with Sen. Rubio to discuss issues and chart strategy.  It was always going to be an uphill struggle.  Now, however, it seems like an even steeper hill to manage.

Leaders of other Tea Party groups, most notably Tea Party Patriots, which sought to maintain a grassroots orientation, have issued a letter decrying the immigration bill Sen. Rubio has spent months negotiating, while other conservative leaders are urging/demanding Republican senators walk away from the compromise.

So, Tea Party groups are active on both sides of the most contentious national issue of the moment, and they battle exclusively within the Republican Party.  Establishment Republicans fear they will pay a price, again, for scuttling reform, while grassroots opponents are prepared to hold elected officials responsible for any small steps toward recognizing eleven million immigrants with anything more than a fence and E-Verify.

At the moment, it seems like a no-win issue for the Tea Party or for the Republican Party.  Their best outcome, to have the issue disappear quickly, seems unlikely; immigration rights activists won’t let that happen.

Alternatively, they can try to find a way to blame Democrats for the failure to reform, pointing to President Obama’s generic leadership deficits, or the efforts of Senator Patrick Leahy to include immigration opportunities for same sex spouses and partners of American citizens.

It might work–for a while–but just as most of the eleven million are not going to go away, neither is the immigration issue, and it sits across a fundamental schism in the Tea Party movement and the Republican Party more generally.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Occupy is an unprotected trademark

Posted on May 14, 2013 by David S. Meyer

Sarah Maslin Nir produced a nice piece in the New York Times that identified–and poked at–the ever-increasing diversity of people and groups claiming to be Occupy.

After Hurricane Superstorm Sandy hit New York, Occupy activists focused their efforts on helping those most hurt by the storm.  Occupiers raised money, cleared debris, and helped people navigate social services.  By all accounts, they were extremely effective.

Nir asks whether this turn embodies the Occupy ethos or represents a move away from meaningful advocacy.  Activists disagree.  Nir reports:

“We’re helping poor people; before we were fighting rich people,” said Goldi Guerra…..  “It’s still the same equation. But it’s much more glass half full, optimistic, giving and… ‘legal.’”

But other Occupiers see the cooperation with police and other authorities, fundraising from large corporations, and the redirection to service, as diversions from challenging and changing a fundamentally unjust social structure.

Figuring out what Occupy is all about is no easy matter.  In the early phase a broad collection of challenges to economic and political inequality were united around a tactic, the Occupation.  When the Occupations were cleared out, in accord with the base democratic ethos of the movement, activists spun out and launched an extraordinarily broad range of Occupy campaigns.

Occupiers focused on student debt, foreclosures, the Keystone Pipeline, electoral politics, and even the National Rifle Association.

This is just a sliver of the Occupy activism out there.  I wouldn’t dare to estimate the number of Facebook groups and local campaigns claiming Occupy as an identity.  Occupy groups are organized by community–or by issue area.

The upside: There’s a broad diversity of activity on the broad range of issues that intersect with inequality, and there’s a huge amount of democratic control.  People work on what they most care about!

But it becomes harder and harder to sustain a national profile or a meaningful message when Occupy has been attached to such a broad range of issues.

And no one can say no.

If I put on mouse ears and claim that Mickey endorses my views at the University of California, I’m reasonably confident that I would receive a timely ceases and decease letter from the amusement park up the street.  But any organized group can claim to Occupy, and to be Occupy.

Problem?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Auditing the Tea Party: One style of American repression

Posted on May 12, 2013 by David S. Meyer

Another example of the old joke: just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you:

The revelation that the Internal Revenue Service targeted groups with “Tea Party” or “Patriot” in their names for strict scrutiny tells us absolutely nothing good about either the Tea Party movement or the government its adherents distrust so much.  Expect more to come out, but right now we know that at least 75 groups with suspicious names (as above) were flagged by IRS employees for investigation.  Their applications for tax-exempt status [501(c)4] were delayed, and the applicants were subject to unusually intrusive questions about donors and intent that violated IRS policy–and maybe the law.

This is not to say that current policies about tax-exemption are wise or serve democracy well (see Matthew Yglesias), particularly in the brief post-Citizens United era.  But the whole notion of liberal [yes, liberal] democracy is equivalent treatment for groups and citizens regardless of their views; government isn’t supposed to pick sides.  Establishing a special category for Tea Party groups, allegedly instigated by low level employees, was apparently known about up the chain of command for at least two years.  This should be disturbing–but not necessarily surprising.  There is, as we know, a long historical record of our Federal government going after groups and individuals that someone in power thought were dangerous and unAmerican.  The list is sure to include at least some that you despise, for example (a very partial list): the Communist Party, Daniel Ellsberg, the Black Panthers, the Ku Klux Klan, pacifists during wartime, journalists of all sorts, Martin Luther King, and Clark Kerr.  But the democratic ideal is always for more debate and more sunlight.

Well, we live in a fallen world.

The IRS has apologized, promising a full investigation–and even if they don’t deliver, be sure that the Congress will.  Whatever additional information surfaces, it will be amplified and promoted by activists and elected officials interested in discrediting the Obama administration–and government in general.  Politically, it’s worlds better than repealing health insurance reform (again) or producing an honest budget.

The IRS harassment of Tea Party groups that we know about so far, however inexcusable, is mild compared to what many many other activists have suffered. This doesn’t mean, however, that it doesn’t matter or wasn’t damaging.

It’s important to remember how such harassment works.  Minimally, it raises the costs of political engagement for people someone in government doesn’t like.  In this case, Tea Partiers are forced to spend more time and money doing something that the IRS effectively made easier for people with different political views.  Time that could have been spent developing coherent analyses, political strategies, or reaching out to potential supporters is spent, instead, talking with a lawyer or accountant (generally on the clock) about filling out forms and requests for information.  At a moment when the Tea Party was still effectively mobilizing, partisans were distracted by something else.

It can be worse.  Fooling around with the IRS is no fun for anyone, and such experiences can dissuade many people from future politics altogether.  The intent of such harassment is to separate the committed hard core from the marginally engaged who might sometimes join them.  It’s the latter group that matters most, most of the time.

Activists on the left, unsympathetic to Tea Party causes, should be particularly sensitive to such harassment.  They should remember that a bureaucracy that gets away with going after foolish or unpopular causes can easily turn on them next.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 14 Comments

Gitmo and the hunger strikes

Posted on May 8, 2013 by David S. Meyer

What happens when you run strap a prisoner down and run a tube through his nose to feed him?  What if it’s twice a day?  What if it’s one hundred people every day?

This is what’s happening at the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.

It’s hard to make the argument that the internment of suspected “enemy combatants” in a prison at Guantanamo Bay is a good thing.  It’s expensive, difficult, bad press, and violates basic conventions of the rules of war–and, of course, US law.  Candidate Barack Obama said all this in 2008, promising to close the prison camp within his first year in the Oval Office.

It was only one of the issues that encountered difficult resistance from  Capitol Hill, and it’s one that he didn’t fight–at least not much.  Four years later, Gitmo still open, with all the deficits he identified before becoming president, the issue of an off-shore prison camp barely registered in the campaign.  After all, one of the attractions of interning prisoners in Cuba is their relative lack of visibility back in the US.

In America some activists keep trying to put Guantanamo back on the political agenda, organizing protests, staging hunger strikes, and generally doing anything they can to get attention.  Successes have been fleeting, and the issue has often fallen to the back of the agendas of even most peace groups.

The prisoners themselves have created the latest blip in a history of neglect that stretches more than a decade.  When a new rotation of guards allegedly mistreated Korans (I’m sure there’s more to this), the prisoners staged a new round of hunger strikes.

The hunger strike is inherently coercive, and it depends upon eliciting a reaction from others who recognize the humanity of the striker.  These strikes began in February, and by most reports, now include most of the 166 prisoners at Guantanamo.  The United States has been force-feeding the strikers–with tubes through their noses.  It’s awful, and it’s hardly good press for the prison or, more generally, the US and its humanitarian goals.  Still, it’s preferable to a series of deaths.

President Obama said as much when he announced that he would re-engage the issue of closing the prison camp.  But this was days ago, and he’s been having a hard time with Congress on other issues that most of the public cares far more about, like immigration, guns, and jobs.

Activists would be wise in not expecting follow through from President Obama without significantly more pressure.  Some groups are trying, again.  Witness against Torture is promoting sympathy hunger strikes.  Code Pink is doing the same.  Twenty-four human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union have signed an open letter calling for the prison to be shut down.  (This too has happened before).  Organized groups are also trying to stage demonstrations to put the issue higher on the national (and Obama’s) agenda.  (Here’s International Answer, which is organizing for May 18th.)

The point: the mass hunger strike gives activists and politicians the opportunity to raise the issue again.  Making change, however, requires a sustained commitment from those outside the prison’s walls.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Remembering the shootings at Kent State

Posted on May 4, 2013 by David S. Meyer

It’s the anniversary of the killing of four college students at Kent State University.  Young National Guardsmen opened fire on students protesting the war on May 4, discharging more than 60 rounds in roughly 13 seconds.  They killed four students: Allison Krause, 19, and Jeffrey Miller, 20, were part of a nonviolent protest that university authorities promised to ban; Sandy Scheuer, 20, and William Schroeder, 19, were walking to class.  The National Guardsmen also wounded nine other students, some severely.

The protests at Kent State were part of a wave of protests that swept across American college campuses on May 1, a Friday, the day after President Richard Nixon announced that he had already ordered American air forces to expand their bombing to Cambodia.  (Roughly a week earlier, after operations had already commenced, Secretary of State William P. Rogers testified before Congress, explicitly denying any intention of expanding the war to Cambodia.)

In Kent, protest and disruption spread into the town that night, with bonfires set in the streets and altercations with police.  The mayor declared a state of emergency, ordered the bars closed, and asked the governor for help in getting everything back under control; the National Guard arrived at the University on Saturday. Students planned a demonstration for Monday to protest the presence of the Guard on campus.  University officials tried to cancel the demonstration, but students assembled anyway. The Guardsmen ordered the students to disperse, then used tear gas before opening fire.

It was terrible, and there is still a great deal we don’t know about: why the National Guard was on campus in the first place?  why the order to fire on unarmed students hundreds of feet away?  Who gave the order?  or was an order even given?  There’s a lot of writing, and a lot of controversy, still.  A good start is a summary, including an annotated bibliography, by two emeritus professors at Kent State, Jerry M. Lewis and Thomas R. Hensley, of Sociology and Political Science, respectively.

The shooting of unarmed students on a public college campus fostered a sense that the country was coming apart.  It was followed by a police shooting of student protesters at Jackson State in Mississippi, where Philip Gibbs, 21, and James Green, 17, were killed, and 12 other students were wounded.

President Nixon established a commission, chaired by William Scranton (formerly governor of Pennsylvania), to report on campus unrest.  commissioned a report on campus unrest.  Published in September, the Scranton Commission answered few of the pressing questions about Kent State or Jackson State, but observed that campus unrest seemed to decline when the war in Vietnam seemed like it was winding down, and escalated after the bombing in Cambodia started.

The war and the demonstrations continued for a while, tapering off when the draft ended the next year.  Authorities developed ways to control dissent, on campus and elsewhere, without using live ammunition against protesters involved in large demonstrations.  Demonstrations generally became less threatening, less disruptive, and less dangerous.

The Kent State and Jackson State killings remain tragic exceptions to more routine protest politics.  It’s a good sign that they stand out in our memories.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments