As Brenda posted earlier today, protesters interrupted yesterday’s Joint Finance Commitee meeting, reading prepared declarations against the massive cuts to education and elimination of in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants. The scene was largely organized by Voces de la Frontera, although it seems others spontaneously joined in as well. Dozens were forcefully removed by the police, as Jeremy Ryan, among others, recorded:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L48gMDq0iyc
I’ve been very disappointed in the amount of negative commentary this action has received on Facebook and other places from self-described opponents of the Walker cuts. These protesters are wasting time, doing more harm than good, violating the democratic process, etc – I’ve read it all at this point. Even more disturbing were the comments from the Democrats on the JFC:
Sen. Bob Jauch (D-Poplar): “I’m on your side. I’m asking you to consider that you could be doing more harm than good.”
Sen. Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee): “With all due respect, you don’t speak for us…the issue is whether this room is going to be filled with you or without you.”
How disappointing. How pathetic. At this crucial juncture in our movement, now is not the time to be dividing those involved in the opposition to the Walker agenda. We have to respect a diversity of tactics; we have to respect that people will be affected differently by the budget; we have to respect that people may have different ideas about the way to proceed forward.
We have to admit that, in many ways, the Walker opposition hasn’t been entirely inclusive of the struggles representing poor people and people of color. By telling Voces and the immigrant community that they’re “doing more harm than good” in their action yesterday, we’re effectively telling brown people to sit down and shut up. Doing so is not only wrong in it’s own right but, by further marginalizing already marginalized voices and creating more division, strategically problematic.
And let’s not forget about the magnitude of the obscenity going on here. Immigrants will no longer be able to afford higher education; poor people will be thrown off welfare rolls; the disabled will be institutionalized; unions will be destroyed; etc ad nauseum. And then there is this:
The specifics of who will be affected and how remain vague. But many fear the worst. Says William Orth, the human services director for Sauk County, “It would not be unreasonable to imagine some people will die sooner than they would have. These are fragile populations.”
For many people, the cuts are of apocalyptic proportions. Now is not the time to pretend that our “democratic process” is functional. Our system doesn’t work for poor people and so many others. Under these circumstances, extralegal tactics have to be considered if we are genuinely committed to reversing the tide. Nonviolent civil disobedience is part of the great American progressive tradition. If we can’t consider embracing the path of Thoreau and King now, then when?
Besides, direct action and protest – not the maneuverings of Democratic legislators – are the only options we have left to do something about the budget process in a meaningful way. Day after day, the 12-4 votes on the JFC are as appalling as they are tragic to witness. Consider:
1) Civil disobedience garners media attention in a way that no other form of opposition can. Yesterday’s protests are on the front page of today’s WSJ and Journal Sentinel.
2) The commitment of people willing to get arrested is an inspiration and catalyst for our movement. Despair has been on the margins of consciousness for many anti-Walker activists and observers since the passage of the collective bargaining law. Such acts of bravery signal that the opposition is still alive and strong.
3) Civil disobedience pushes the margins of the political spectrum to the left. It makes the Democratic legislators and union leaders look more mainstream.
4) Every disruption of this obscene process is a victory. Every action that slows down and interferes JFC meetings weakens the Republican determination and exposes their arrogance. It also makes them panic and forces them to break their own rules, as was the case with the violation in the passage of the collective bargaining law.
As Walkerville sets up in the downtown and more protest ensues in the coming weeks, now is the time to applaud, not denigrate, those willing to directly confront the architects of this horror. There is room for more than one kind of progressive in this fight.
Onward.
The disruption of the process is not necessarily a victory if you cannot occupy the moral high ground. If you are shouting down speech rather than adding to the debate, you will de-legitimize your movement in the eyes of the average voter. Judge Sumi just struck down an obscene piece of legislation because its passage violated Wisconsin’s Open Meetings Law. That was a victory based on respect for the process and the rule of law. It is hypocrisy to turn around and crap on that process.
Getting out the vote (or gathering recall signatures) is hard and tedious work. It’s much more exciting to join a flash mob to disrupt a committee hearing and get media attention.
And no one is telling brown people to sit down and shut up. The criticism has been of the method, not of the message nor of the messenger. From people who have worked hard to force the FitzVanWalker crowd to respect the law, such criticism is a sign of non-partisan integrity, not contempt for diversity.
“The disruption of the process is not necessarily a victory if you cannot occupy the moral high ground. If you are shouting down speech rather than adding to the debate, you will de-legitimize your movement in the eyes of the average voter.”
You’re making two different arguments here: 1) Civil disobedience is wrong in its own right and 2) It’s ineffective. Taking these in order:
1) If you think disrupting a process such as this – a racist, xenophobic, classist process, one that will ruin the lives of those not as privileged as you and I – then I guess we just have different values and there is no point in arguing further. There have been countless instances in American history in which extralegal methods have been employed to directly confront moral obscenity.
2)You present no empirical evidence for your claim that civil disobedience is counterproductive. For my reasons as to why I think just the opposite, see the original post.
“Getting out the vote (or gathering recall signatures) is hard and tedious work. It’s much more exciting to join a flash mob to disrupt a committee hearing and get media attention.”
Way to insult those risking arrest and possibly deportation. Say what you will about the effectiveness of such tactics, but insulting people’s motivations (spending time in jail and paying fines is so much fun!) is totally uncalled for.
“And no one is telling brown people to sit down and shut up.”
Not explicitly, but the effect is the same. If you don’t think immigrants and nonwhite people and poor people haven’t felt marginalized by the mainstream of Walker opposition, I would encourage you to talk to more people.
In discussions like these, I always find this MLK quote to be particularly apt:
“I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that [our] great[est] stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action;” who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises … to wait until a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
“I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice, and that when they fail to do this they become dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress…”
Not all non-violent civil disobedience is a good idea. If as a result of your protest action, more people side with the people you disagree with and against you than would have if you had done nothing, your protest is a bad idea, and you shouldn’t do it.
There is nothing wrong with the process the Republicans were using in JFC. They were following the law and the rules, and they are (for the time being) the legitimately-elected government. Robin Vos and Alberta Darling, in having the protestors thrown out for disrupting the meeting, did nothing that I wouldn’t completely support if it had been Mark Pocan and Mark Miller against teabaggers protesting, say, the domestic partnership registry.
The civil rights movement used non-violent civil disobedience because 1. it can be effective in provoking your opponents to overreaction that makes them look bad and their actions unjust 2. they had no meaningful access to the democratic process. Remember, this was in a time and place when anyone who tried to register black voters could be killed.
This protest did not provoke overreaction on the part of the Republicans. It provoked the appropriate reaction. No one has the right to disrupt the operation of the legislature, and if you do, you should be thrown out. This did not make the Republicans look bad; it made Voces look bad.
And it’s not as if there weren’t other alternatives. Instead of coming and disrupting the meetings, they could have had held rallies in the districts of Hopper, Darling, Olsen, and Harsdorf on these same issues. And while they were their, they could have knocked on doors to talk to voters directly about why they opposed the budget, including these provisions. That would have had a greater positive impact.
Kyle, This is a great post and explins this mindset well. I am however going to disagree a little.
I think there are better ways to do what they are doing. I do not think that has always been the case but I think now it is. I actually kind of covered this @ blogging blue http://bloggingblue.com/2011/05/10/what-is-the-difference/
I think we have the moral and logical and lawful high ground here. Everything that the republicans and the Walker Administration has been egregious but I think we have proven that we can beat them in other ways! The 6 recalls for instance, and how quicky we(as in collectivaly all of us progressives) gathered these signatures. The fact that they have to pass their draconian bills as unethically as they do, the fact that they broke the open meetings laws, and the list goes on and on and on.
I am one that believes in the marketing/theatre of the whole process. When they kick Jeremy Ryan out and arrest him for doing nothing, they look like asses and that empowers Erpenbach to bring it up on the floor. WHen we(again collectively) do stuff like this it empowers THEM to use it against us.
Lets use this energy to make sure we are successful in the recalls, or yell at the republicans in the meetings when they start ignoring testimony or testify at every session and just keep putting their egregious acts on the record, use the money they are paying in fines and tickets for boots on the ground, etc…
I love and admire their passion and desire to make this a better state. I think, unlike most cases where civil disobedience was necessary(as you so well documented), we have the upper hand in numbers, and public opinion, etc… We just need to be patient and keep the pressure on (legally)!!!
Fair points, but I also want to emphasize that we need to maintain a progressive momentum independent of Democratic Party politicians. Let’s not forget that the Dems had control not very long ago and almost nothing of progressive consequence was achieved. In other words, we need to keep up the pressure on whatever politicians are in office, otherwise all we have to look forward to post-Walker/post-recalls are a return of the Doyle years…
Kyle, you are setting up straw men. You claim that any criticism of this specific action (the disruption of that committee hearing) is a criticism of all civil disobedience. It is not.
You claim that the process itself (rather than the legislation that resulted in this particular case) is racist, classist and xenophobic. Do you really believe that our system of legislating is inherently racist?
Do you believe that a Republican-controlled legislature is inherently racist, classist and xenophobic? If so, you do believe that it is morally-defensible to use extra-legal means to change the make-up of that legislature? That seems to be the implication when you say that the process (rather than the specific work product) is racist, classist and xenophobic, and that any act of civil disobedience is morally defensible.
Kyle, I agree. I would never say that we should just let the dems go forward without being held to account either. All I am saying is since we are winning, lets keep doing what got us there. I know sometimes it does not go as fast as we want, and in the meantime they will probably pass some nasty stuff, but we need to be patient and keep doing what we are doing.
Even as a progressive, I feel much better about stories such as when Scott fitz tried to give a press conference and was asked questions by those kids and he ran out of the room. That kind of imagery will keep us ahead!
By all means we absolutely need to keep the pressure on the dems even more so than the republicans. Even though the doyle years look good now, I expect more also when we help them gain power back.
Jill, the process has not incorporated the voices of the marginalized, poor and nonwhite. So, yes, the process is exclusive, and it’s no surprise that the “work product” ends up making life more difficult for those whose lives are already relatively difficult.
You say that I’ve established a “straw man” but the argument that you and others have made against civil disobedience in this case would logically extend to civil disobedience in all cases. Besides, if you’re not willing to take that extra step in a situation as extreme as this, then when?
We shouldn’t fetishize rules and order. They shouldn’t be ends in themselves. To me, they’re only important insofar as they uphold justice and equality. Clearly, they are not in this case; indeed, by defending the law when its being utilized for abhorrent ends, we end up defending these reactionary policies as well.
One final point: Civil disobedience is almost always unpopular in the general population. Generally, its outcome, if utilized correctly, is to gain sympathy for the cause itself, not the protesters.
The idea is that when we are successful in the recalls and next election that the marginalized, poor and nonwhite will finally have a voice. If the democrats continue to ignore them as in the past, then we change tactics again and pressure the democrats hard!!
In the meantime lets all get together and elect progressives!