Yesterday’s march from Madison’s Fire Station 1 to the Walkerville camp and around the Capitol – stopping by the criminal M&I Bank along the way – was an inspiring spectacle, but things should have turned out better.
Among the marchers were dozens of participating vehicles – fire trucks, union cabs, tractors, AFSCME vehicles – that drove around the Capitol Square. The original plan was to use these vehicles to surround the square, blockading it and utilizing it as a space for political protest in the same way it was during the original protests over the collective bargaining law.
The story hasn’t been recounted in any local media outlets that I’ve seen, but this outline of the day’s activities had been approved by Mayor Paul Soglin in discussion with union leaders. The agreement was that the protest vehicles would be allowed to to block off the various entrances to the the Capitol Square, not allowing any other traffic in the area for most of the day. The agreement stipulated that the police would not interfere in this activity.
However, upon entering the square, protesters quickly learned this is not how things were going to play out. Union Cabs were told to leave the square after circling it one time. Other vehicles were ticketed. At the State St entrance, two protesters were arrested.
What happened?
From the various accounts, it’s become clear that Soglin, who was at the march’s starting point at the fire station, reneged on his promises to the unions, directing the Madison police of the change in plans about 30 minutes before the march began. Naturally, he made this call without talking with any of the protest organizers.*
I can only conclude that, given the relatively small size of the protest (perhaps a thousand people or so), Soglin decided that the resistance to his reversal wouldn’t be particularly potent, and so his political calculation was to side with “law and order” over those resisting the governor’s agenda. From a purely political standpoint, his decision was probably the right one (in the near-term at least), given the right-wing criticism of Walkerville and increasingly numerous voices opposed to civil disobedience.
[Edit: In a recent email exchange, Soglin claims he didn’t have any contact with the police during Monday’s protest, other than a simple “hello.” He also claims that he only made it clear that he would “recommend” to the police to issue a series of warnings, an hour apart, which would effectively have the square cleared for most of the day. Clearly, this isn’t how protest organizers interpreted their exchange, but take this as you will.]
I think yesterday’s turn of events serve as a reminder that, for those resisting the Walker agenda, protest (of various sorts) is our only reliable and most powerful tool. It was protest that gave the Democratic senators cover to flee the state; it was protest that exposed the Republican arrogance and forced them into illegally passing the collective bargaining law. Similarly, when our protests aren’t as large and/or confrontational as they should be, we allow our politician “allies” – be they Soglin or Democratic legislators – to betray us.
In short, if our sole instrument for change is the Democratic Party, well, forgive me for not exactly being hopeful about our prospects.
But regardless of what one thinks about this strategy debate, the fact remains that Soglin lied to yesterday’s protesters. I voted for the man, and I certainly applaud many of his actions during his early days as mayor, but this development is hardly encouraging and, frankly, says some discouraging things about his integrity.
*Edit: I’ve spoken with people who seem to be sure that Soglin made a call at the march directing the police to keep the square open to traffic. Regardless of whose call it ultimately was, I don’t think this point is really important. For Soglin to make a promise to protesters knowing full well he couldn’t keep the promise is effectively a lie, in my opinion, and equally indefensible. He’s the one in charge and so he’s responsible for what happened.
I saw Soglin standing in front of the Inn on the Park after the march went by the first time (I was letting my dog cool off in the grass). He was there until they came around again, and then I didn’t see him. That was when the demonstrators stopped at M&I – and my daughter was arrested.
Back when the Mayor’s Conference happened when Sue Bauman was mayor – the one with all the police and federal agents blocking access to the Union, I saw Paul Soglin go into the Union and look at us and smile.
I don’t believe that the Mayor has control over the police department in the way that people think. Only the PFC can discipline officers (including the Chief and including removing the Chief). without this power dynamic, the Mayor has no control over the PD.
In response to a lot of the voiced skepticisim about Soglin’s role in the police actions, a few things need to be clarified. Frankly, I don’t understand where this sentiment of infinitely giving him the benefit of the doubt is coming from.
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, though, that Police Chief Noble Wray ordered the square cleared of the protesters. This would mean the following:
1) Soglin made a promise to the unions that he knew he couldn’t keep. He knowingly put them into a dangerous situation in which arrests and possibly violence over the confusion would ensue.
2) As a witness to the police behavior on Monday (remember, Soglin was present at the protest), he either did nothing or was unable to do nothing about the actions of law enforcement. If it was the former, I see no practical or moral difference with him actually giving the order. If it was the latter, then apparently our city is a police state – literally. It seems reasonable to think that Soglin would have some type of authority over police actions, and so it was his responsibility to do everything in his power to stop the police repression and fulfill his obligation to the working people on the streets that day.
Soglin hasn’t come forward and publicly explained his actions. As outlined above, I see no possible scenario in which he is not culpable. The unions would have never attempted to blockade the capitol square had Soglin not given them the go-ahead in the first place.
In conclusion, those sincerely dedicated to fighting for the interests of workers and others marginalized put their trust in politicians at their own peril.
But I will repeat: All of the information I have gathered points to Soglin as the one who gave the directive.
There are safety reasons for not blocking the intersections of the square and it isn’t the Mayor’s responsibility to tell the police NOT to enforce safety. He can turn a blind eye, but his influence ends there.
“There are safety reasons for not blocking the intersections of the square and it isn’t the Mayor’s responsibility to tell the police NOT to enforce safety.”
With all due respect, Jesse, this is ridiculous. The square was regularly “blocked off” by police vehicles, firetrucks and cones during the collective bargaining protests. And if there were any safety concerns, this could have been worked out by the police and protesters.
Much less safe is sending in a thousand protesters into an action and then encountering an unexpected police resistance. This is especially true with vehicles involved.
Also, there were some arrests made as a result of this confusion. Is Soglin going to pay their fines and personally apologize to them?
Finally, if there were safety concerns, why would Soglin have made this agreement in the first place?
It’s getting a bit ridiculous – Soglin is a politician, not a God.
Being that there’s already a special state emergency task force keeping a close eye on all protest organization activity and, as far as I’ve been told, working with law enforcement to quell what they find, I think it’s entirely possible that Soglin may have been plain overruled/outranked on this one.