Even when off-key, protest is music to the ear
"Ill take 50 people chanting in the street because of their beliefs over 50 people nodding off in front of the TV."
By ARNOLD GARCIA Jr.
Anyone who lived through the 1960s -- which set the standard for anti-war protests -- finds it nigh impossible not to compare those times to these. In Austin, across the United States and around the world, demonstrators have taken to the streets to manifest their disapproval of the war in Iraq, stirring memories of the Vietnam era.
About the only thing those two eras really have in common, though, is that the debate over the debate will be emotional and that people will attach much too much significance to the demonstrations.
Demonstrations are full of color, sound and fury -- all the makings of great television. Slogans and rhetoric make great sound bites but aren't designed to illuminate issues and don't usually change minds or drive policy. No one should confuse protests with substantive debate. Issues of war and peace are heavy on nuances that don't fit well on a placard. International politics are so complex that they defy glib sloganeering.
Nonetheless, I'll take 50 people chanting in the street because of their beliefs over 50 people nodding off in front of the TV. Whether I agree or disagree with the chanters is irrelevant: I respect the effort undertaken to push a point of view.
As a nation, we have always had trouble keeping protests in perspective. You'd think that after 200-plus years, we would find that perspective, but the nascent debate over the debate indicates otherwise. As a society, we should be secure enough by now not to be threatened by those who disagree.
In times like these, though, we have difficulty bridging the gap between the concept of freedom of expression and its execution. Freedom of expression is always the first freedom to be put on the block when the going gets rough. Witness the debate over the debate and watch both sides inflate the importance of the demonstrations until they pop from the pressure of all that hot air.
Do the demonstrators really think George W. Bush is going to order Donald Rumsfeld to call off the war because someone carrying a sign and chanting a slogan demands it? Do critics of those demonstrators really believe that protesting the war threatens the morale of the troops?
Both ought to get real.
One of the many baby boomer conceits is that the antiwar protests somehow stopped the war. If that were true, the war would have ended in 1969 or '70 when the protests were at their zenith. Instead, the war dragged on long after the protests dwindled along with the draft calls.
As to whether the protests undermined morale, it didn't affect mine much, but not much did. So I asked a couple of Vietnam vets to comment on the effect of demonstrations back home had on them.
"I didn't spend a whole lot of time worrying about that," said Dave Helfert, who in 1966 was the among the crew of a Navy river patrol boat in Vietnam. It was tough, dangerous duty. "There were a lot of other things that were important. My focus in Vietnam was getting out of there." Today, Helfert is a spokesman for U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Texas), so he's pulling a different kind of tough, dangerous duty.
"In combat, you worry about carrying out your mission and staying alive," said Stan Knee, Austin's police chief. In 1968 and part of 1969, Knee was an officer in the 5th Infantry Division in Vietnam. So, no, the demonstrations back home weren't his principal focus.
Both noted, though, that modern troops have access to communication that the Vietnam-era GI did not. There were no cell phones or Internet back then. What hasn't changed, though, is that the mission should be a soldier's prime focus.
And today's generation of protesters aren't personalizing their ire like their 1960s counterparts did. Vietnam-era vets aren't likely to forget being insulted for wearing a uniform. Today's protesters -- some of them, anyway -- give lip service to supporting the troops.
Wearing the mantle of dissent, however, doesn't absolve anyone from assuming the responsibilities that come with rights. You may have a right to express your disapproval but not to block traffic or destroy property. If you do, you have to accept the consequences. Even more important, those who claim to cherish dissent ought to be able to handle with aplomb people who disagree with them.
The expression of free speech can be downright annoying, but free speech has been bought and paid for many times in many places over the years. It would be a shame not to use it.
