D-6

D-6
Varieties of Protesters and Protest:
In order to make any sense of the great variety of tactics as witnessed within the present movement, one must keep in mind a primary distinction between two broad groupings of protesters: those for whom tactics are chiefly a moral question and those who see tactics chiefly as means to political ends. Nearly all, or 99% of pacifists fall into the first category. For them, the ethical posture of nonviolence is no less important than the cause for which they may be agitating. Believing in a govt of law, they insist on making themselves liable to the law's penalties; they hope to persuade others by the example of their sacrifice. Most non-pacifist, in contrast, are more interested in impeding the systems that be than in achieving a "correct" moral posture, and they are not bothered-or not so deeply bothered-by the idea of tactics which "hurt the enemy" while enabling the protester to avoid arrest. This is not to say that this group's tactics actually are more politically effective than the pacifists; that is a matter of continual debate within the movement (at least in Pdx). the point is that in assessing the movement's tactical evolution we must recognize the influence of a serious philosophical (if not ideological) disagreement which prevents that evolution from being simple or wholly explainable in pragmatic terms.
Assuming, however, for purpose of argument that both sides could agree on a unified or superior effectiveness of one approach or the other, it is still unlikely that the two grps would have coalesced. Radical militants are as averse to the posture of meekly courting arrest as the pacifists are to hit-and-run vandalism. Both parties, therefore, appear to be inhibited by choice of lifestyle from adopting a certain range of tactics and their means of protest are always bound to diverge.
The only tactics that both grps have agree on are mass rallies, a few peaceful marches but not ballot initiatives, no effective picketing, boycotts, sit-ins on any level let alone develop articulated statement as to exactly what their movement's demands of govt are, soliciting support of unions, church and community organizing projects. Perhaps recognizing this, movement coordinators (since they deny existence of any "organizers") have increasingly turned to unstructured demonstrations with "General Assembly's" which have never resulted in any sort of consensus on plan of action in which ideological lines are not insisted upon and protesters are free to take the sort of action that suits them individually. The movement as a whole has been singularly relaxed in this respect, drifting with events instead of following a fixed timetable, agenda and strategy of action, placing more reliance on a developing consensus feeling than on the adoption a direct political line and articulated demands. There have been constant quarrels and tensions, but they can be called minor in consideration of the vast differences that would appear within the movement if it ever had to set forth its positive vision of the good life. Perhaps for these reasons is why the movement appears to be going nowhere. The adage "United We Stand,Divided We Fall" sure comes to mind.
There can be no simple equation of militancy and violence or of pacifism and nonviolence. The truth is that neither wing/faction of this movement has been violent in comparison with comparable movements in our past and in other countries for sure. Surprisingly, the tactics of obstruction,disruption have been most richly explored by the pacifists, whose record of personal and small grp confrontation with police and military extends back into the days of Pacific nuclear testing, before Vietnam War was an issue.
The attention of public authorities is nevertheless concentrated on the non-pacifist militants and understandably so, for they are the ones who are not prevented by ethical scruples from passing into a more "revolutionary" phase. They arouse interest more for what they might later decide to do than for anything that has happened yet. Within this grouping there has certainly been a development-haphazard and halting and always subject to reconsideration-toward confrontation. Today the movement is still not wedded to confrontation as a favorite style of action, but the number of protesters who find it philosophically acceptable and politically meaningful appears to be increasing.
The reason for this trend appears plain. The movement at its best has only succeeded in producing negative effects which include public backlash and additional economic strain on their already strained community/municipal financial resources as well as workers lost wages due to disruption. Until govt acts to remedy whatever the protesters demands (as yet to be articulated and publicly stated), the more moderate element within the movement may find itself increasingly out of touch with the small minority who actually seek violence and can claim that milder tactics have proved unsuccessful. As in the "Black Liberation" movement, time may be running out for those who counsel prolonged patience, trust and nonviolence.````````````