Dallasblog.com, the Dallas, Texas news blog and Dallas, Texas information source for the DFW Metroplex. - DALLAS BLOG

The Do’s and Don’ts of Protesting

by Tara Ross

Mon, Aug 10, 2009, 12:21 PM

In America, only certain types of protests are protected by the First Amendment. Very patriotic Americans participate in these activities, and these Americans are engaging in exactly the type of speech that the founding generation intended to protect. These brave souls should be applauded. Whatever you do, don’t confuse them with a second type of protestor. This latter group is composed of troublemakers and mobsters. The expression of their voices is not grassroots activity at all—it is mere Astroturf. Nancy Pelosi has fairly warned us that these citizens are consumed with anger and hatred. Their views are completely invalid to the democratic process.

So, beware, elected officials. Don’t get sucked into believing that you should pay attention to the views of all your constituents. Only some people matter.

It’s okay, for example, to protest George W. Bush’s handling of the war or the existence of detainment facilities in Guantanamo Bay. And it’s certainly valid to protest the mistreatment of animals or energy policies that fail to consider environmental impact. Nobody could be blamed for participating in a march on behalf of minority or gay rights. But it is not okay to attend a town hall meeting and voice concern about a massive overhaul to the provision of medical care in this country. Nor is it okay to express concern that the federal government is becoming too invasive and spending too much money. Those who worry about these matters clearly just don’t understand that Big Brother is usurping power for their own good.

It is also okay to attend protests in Birkenstocks, t-shirts, sandals or shorts. These protesters may grow their hair long or wear it in dreadlocks. Any garment that emphasizes their fond recollection of hippie days should be considered a sign of their credibility (tie-dye shirts, peace signs). Those who wear nothing at all are especially dedicated to their cause. Whatever you do, don’t believe those protesters who show up wearing suits or button-down shirts and khakis. These protesters are too well dressed. They have given themselves away as less than patriotic Americans. They are the troublemakers that you have been warned about.

You’ll often find that the most trustworthy protesters will attend protests when they are having trouble holding down their job. Or they may think that jobs are for wimps or that their employers should cater to their every whim. Or they may like, value, and work hard at their jobs, but at least they were smart enough and patriotic enough to avoid working on Wall Street. Anyone may protest if he thinks the minimum wage needs to be raised. No one may protest once he is benefitting too handsomely from the existence of a capitalist system. That system is on its way out. Indeed, those who protest this state of affairs too loudly may be turned into Barack Obama’s White House for their "fishy" talk.

One last important point about protesting: Valid protests may be organized by concerned citizens, but only if they hide the fact that they are organizing their activity. They should not give away the fact that they told their friends about a protest or town hall meeting. Tweets about the subject should be denied or turned into Obama’s Ministry of Truth. Facebook groups, announcements, and other recruiting activity should be minimized. An invitation to an event—even on a holiday such as the Fourth of July—is a dead giveaway that your views are not to be trusted.

Who cares if your like-minded neighbor next door or down the block didn’t realize that your congressman was coming through town for a town hall meeting? Your neighbor is going to have to figure that out for himself. Otherwise, the congressman will know better than to take his concerns seriously.

Bookmark

Email This

Comments (9) add comment

...
written by Jason K , August 10, 2009

Yawn.
There should be a health care DEBATE. Yelling over people and not listening shuts out debate and makes one into an uncivilized boob.

Both sides are guilty in this, but now it's the Republicans since the "debate" is now about health care reform... which does need to happen.

...
written by ElHombre , August 11, 2009

To have a debate, you have to bring ideas. The conservatives can't do this due to their placing a higher priority on insurance company profits over the health of the country: Their idea of a health-care solution is essentially for folks who can't afford health-care to die ASAP.

Conservatives don't want a debate. They know they'll lose. So they're just going to fall back on their tried-and-tested position of whining, crying and shouting. All while lying through their teeth.

...
written by Cathie Adams , August 11, 2009

I can't stand the thought of all future campaign "debates" surrounding who will promise more and better health care. That is exactly what would happen if we socialize our medical system. It gives the government the upper hand so that we'll forever be eating out of their hands.

...
written by Ken Dickson , August 11, 2009

ElHombre, You are "all wet" on this one! Obamacare will destroy this country both economically as well as the best medical care in the world.. you do not burn down the house when you are trying to remodel it!

...
written by Matt Pate , August 11, 2009

The fact of the matter is that conservatives won the "debate" a long time ago, which is why there's really no need for a debate to begin with. Americans by and large do not want socialized medicine, which is why Congress and Obama are both overstating the problem (“crisis” in health care where 70% of people are satisfied with their health plans) and understating their solutions (couching their position as mere "health insurance" reform). Skeptical voters don’t buy it, so Senators and Representatives are simply getting appropriate feedback. And what response do they offer? Complaints that right wing extremists are preventing them from spouting their obfuscations of what they are trying to accomplish. More to the point, people are simply fed up with an overreaching and incompetent federal bureaucracy with a huge sense of entitlement that has lost credibility when it comes to massive domestic spending and regulatory agendas, and they are venting their frustration in an altogether appropriate fashion. Elections have consequences, but thank God we have them with regularity.

...
written by Bob Reagan , August 12, 2009

Saul Alinsky, who is doubtless in the left's pantheon, wrote the book on Rules for Radicals. To the extent that the proponents of reason and liberty are take a page out of the late Alinsky's playbook, it is about time. One thing is certain, leftists can dish it out, but can't take it. Still, Obamacare opponents should keep cool heads and appeal to reason and the reality that government takeover will ruin the health care that 70%+ Americans enjoy.

Mr. Pate provides a good example of this approach. It is unsurprising that the poltroons who hide behind pseudonyms are the most strident, and mostly, but not entirely, on the left.

...
written by ElHombre , August 12, 2009

Time for some facts:

1) We already HAVE socialized medicine. Medicare for the elderly, and Medicaid for the poorest among us. And let's go ahead and incluse the VA hospitals. Care to be the one to say we have to do away with any of those, Cathie? Everyone else who isn't in one of those previous categories have to find their own. If they can.

2) Health care is NOT OPTIONAL. Sick people cannot contribute to the economy noe society.

3) Health care costs are continuing to rise. Individuals can't afford it and neither can private business.

4) It's a fact that the US spends more on health care than anyone else yet gets the least amount of care.

5) Most industrial countries have already come to terms with these facts and adopted various kinds of gov't programs to deal with it. Obama and liberals want to adopt a 'Medicare for the rest of Americans' type of program for us. Conservatives want sick people to be subjected to an immoral and selfish 'Get better or just die' approach.

Guess which one Americans would prefer?

...
written by yossarian , August 24, 2009

The Declaration is clear about "petitioning for redress." The Constitution is clear about protest. Almost any type of protest is acceptable, regardless of the message--if there is "Peaceable Assembly." That means that the group protesting is responsible for keeping the peace among their group. In large or small groups this is not always possible because there may be one or more provocative folks who take it upon themselves to break with this philosophy. The essay you have written tends to draw upon stereotypes of hippies and heavily implies that they receive special protesting privileges. The last eight years, peace groups--and this is but one example--comprised of Mennonites and Quakers who are given to eating cookies and discussing peace, have been infiltrated, spied upon and documented by the government. It is routine that people who publicly protest are photographed and their license plates documented. Are these the type of privileges you refer to? Are respectable people, or, all those who do not resemble hippies and have conservative values, being discriminated against?
The most recent protests have struck a nerve across the political spectrum because the protesters seem to mainly be acting as obstructionists. So, does this constitute "Peaceful Assembly?" Does their protesting halt the function of the event? Do their actions prevent other citizens from full participation in an event designed for Q&A between citizens and their representatives in the topic of policy?
It is being reported in some cases that the protesters are not constituents of the town hall. If this is the case, then venting opinions is depriving other citizens of the right to ask public questions of their representatives. While all US citizens have the right to "petition for redress," its modalities have legal limits defined by what is or what is not, "Peaceful Assembly."

...
written by DAN COMSTOCK , August 30, 2009

While we can agree that all sides should be heard on this issues, Tara Ross' points are well taken. On the health care debate itself, it is often said that we already have socialized medicine (Medicare and Medicaid). However, is the fact that we have taken these steps a logical argument to continue the process? Using this argument is simply the much used tactic of incremental-ism rather than a form of rigorous logic. It is essentially a circular and "self affirming" argument. The fact that we have partially socialized our medicine (Medicare & Medicaid) is not in itself an argument for expanding the process. Our experience in this regard does not provide any assurance of true cost containment (except in the “service denied” mode). It is also often said that we have a “right” to health care. While any compassionate society is concerned about those in need, when it is reduced to a “right” who are we going to force to give it? If we try to force feed this we may find that our overall health care will diminish. It is sometimes said that the USA spends more on health care than anyone else yet gets the least amount of care. This is a bold assertion which covers a great deal of territory. We have our problems, and I can easily believe that we spend more on health care that anyone else, but the rest is a stretch on an overall basis.

Everyone can agree that we have some sticky issues that need to be addressed in some fashion. The fact is that principled Conservatives want to find real solutions to problems without handing over control of our lives to a monolithic Government. Perhaps the Federal Government should pass a few enlightened laws that would actually help like allowing people to group themselves on any basis for price negotiation purposes. There are forms of regulation which do not endanger our Republic. Conservatives typically want people to take as much personal responsibility as possible. I would say that we are failing as a society to the extent that we become dependent upon an all-powerful Federal Government to solve our social problems. That we are our “brother’s keeper” does not make it wise to abdicate our collective responsibility to a monolithic Federal Government. Perhaps as a society we should not be so dependent on the Federal Government to solve social problems. Perhaps more power should go back to the States where at least our legislators are more approachable and have a better chance of actually hearing our concerns. Even better, perhaps collectively we should work more through our religious and civic organizations to solve social problems.

Write comment

< Prev		Next >