July 13, 2007

Is protesting now passe?

Steve Scauzillo

CONGRESS shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. - taken from Amendment I, U.S. Constitution.

The right to protest is right there in the First Amendment, along with speech, religion and the press. Thomas Jefferson put public assembly and redressing the government right up there with those other precious freedoms.

Why then don't more people take to the streets or march on Capitol Hill? Why were there more campus protests of the war in Iraq by professors than students? Why have labor unions, in particular the United Food and Commercial Workers (who represent grocery workers) gone to focus groups this time around after concluding public assemblies don't work? Why, as state Sen. Jack Scott wrote in a Guest View last week, have protesters been wrongly labeled anti-American or unpatriotic?

I asked several activists and political observers and got some very different answers.

"I do think protests have gone out of style in the United States," said Cal State Fullerton political science professor Raphe Sonenshein. "A lot of it is a tactical question."

Sonenshein said advocacy groups are using more sophisticated tactics, such as listserves, e-mails and Web sites to spread their message and raise funds.

Claire Schlotterbeck of Brea, executive director of Hills For Everyone, said her group still holds rallies in Diamond Bar every other Friday to raise awareness for preserving the Puente Hills. Founder Dave Myers used slideshows in the '70s to bring his message to libraries and social clubs. Now, the group has a professionally produced DVD about preserving San Gabriel Valley green space and stopping the 3,600 unit AERA project proposed for Rowland Heights.

Sam Pedroza, co-founder of Amigos de los Rios, said the group's strategy was to influence opinion leaders - city council members and other elected officials - to gain funding for restoration of space along the San Gabriel and Rio Hondo rivers. Large rallies were rarely used.

"I think it (protest rallies) is a declining art," added Sonenshein.

A vein running through Michael Moore's movie "Sicko" says Americans don't protest anymore, that 2007 in America is not like 40 years ago when young Americans marched for civil rights and for an end to the Vietnam War. America is not like France, where the middle class can get 100,000 into the street to rail about wine, working conditions or ahem, their dislike of America.

Moore implies that France is therefore more "democratic" than the U.S. That sat in my stomach like a greasy hot dog and side of freedom fries. I had to investigate.

Matt Klink, a conservative who is executive vice president of Cerrell Associates, the oldest political consulting firm in Los Angeles, says people aren't protesting because they're happy.

"The economy is good, people have jobs, we have a strong middle class. Frankly, the status quo is working pretty well," Klink said. "The American dream is still alive and well."

Others say that but with a more cynical bent.

Ted Snyder, a Whittier progressive who just returned from a rally for Dennis Kucinich, the liberal Democrat running for president, said the America of the sixties is long gone.

"To some degree, people are comfortable ... they aren't outraged about injustice ... they aren't as committed to causes," Snyder said.

Those flower-power hippies have discovered DirecTV and frozen yogurt. "To them, going to a Michael Moore movie is their protest event," he said.

Sonenshein said protesters must have something personal at stake, like when the price of bread went up and people hit the streets. "They used to call those the bread riots," he said. Examples of people protesting this way recently are illegal immigrants (May 1 protests in L.A.) not wanting tougher immigration laws, which could have a direct effect on them or their families.

Likewise, without a draft, not many people have a direct stake in the war in Iraq. And when you have more than enough to eat and live in a 2,600-square-foot air conditioned house in Diamond Bar, you've little reason to protest.

On the contrary, Jefferson and his buddies had a ton of stuff at stake. They wanted to throw off the British government and stop the crown from imposing high taxes - on them and their businesses! Some colonists wanted to worship freely, something they could not do in their home country.

Yeah, Jefferson put the right to assemble and protest in the First Amendment because a lot was at stake. If he and his buddies were to fight and die for change, it better stick.

But today, there's not as much to change. In the '60s, people were reacting to the restrictive and discriminatory society of the '50s. Today, society is more accepting, much more open.

"Some of the perceived impetus ... to rail against the establishment is missing," Snyder recognized.

Maybe the hard facts are that Americans must have a good reason to take to the streets. Or maybe, we already have our change agent: We get to choose a new president in 2008. That's great, but only if people vote. But if more people continue to "vote" for the next "American Idol" than the next president, then they are proving Michael Moore right. And that doesn't sit well with me.