Conor Friedersdorf and I share an aversion to protests, on the grounds that they rarely work. But he adds: "If you're going to have a big protest -- or even a mid-sized family
reunion -- you can't help it that some loonies are gonna show up. This
is part of why I am averse to big protests, but it's also why no one
should judge the average protester by the looniest signs that
surrounded them."
To me, this is why protests are a bad idea. You will always be judged by your looniest adherents, in part because badly hand-lettered signs with ho-hum slogans at a PTA level of anger are just not very photogenic. Unless you can police your movement as effectively as, say, the Civil Rights marchers did, you will likely end up giving your political enemies ammunition. And of course, the Civil Rights movement was more easily able to present a united front because people who acted anything but saintly in their Sunday best were very likely to be beaten by the actual police.
That said, I confess I am surprised--though I probably shouldn't be--to see a respected anti-war libertarian site, whose proprietor got quite testy when people lumped him in with the ANSWER goons and the puppeteers, embracing the notion that the worst signs you can photograph from an event represent the collective point-of-view of everyone who attended the protest. One knows this will happen, which is why, as I say, protests are generally a bad idea. But one doesn't expect this sort of gross generalization from every quarter.
On a side note, I find the question of how many people attended quite interesting. I don't see how you can make these photos jibe with the low-tens-of-thousands estimates left-wing blogs are pushing. I also don't know how anyone ever thought millions were possible, when the inauguration involved months of planning and millions of dollars to pack people onto the mall like sardines. But what I really don't understand is how a New York Times headline writer got to "thousands", which is the size of the crowd at a decent high school football game. Crowd estimates are an uncertain science, and the police have stopped doing them precisely because everyone gets so emotionally involved in distorting them. But this is perhaps the most dramatic example of this I've seen.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Yep. It's over. Back to the scrapple factory. Good times.
From the ULTIMATE source ... wikipedia:
"Scrapple is best known as a regional American food of the Mid-Atlantic States (Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland)."
Shouldn't they have included a (D) after the states ;->
And lets not even get the Hagus people going!
Have you seen credible estimates of more than 70,000 or so? Which is a respectable figure, and a good sized protest - and as Nate Silver points out, no doubt represents millions more who didn't show up.
I'm certainly not an expert in this arena, but looking at those pictures I'm struck by the relatively low density of the crowd compared to ones which have definitely racked up hundreds of thousands - take a few minutes to look up pictures of the 2006 pro-immigration rallies and you'll see what I mean. For that matter, it looks like fewer people than what DC used to get for the 4th of July Beach Boys concerts on the Mall before the Reagan administration squelched them - those crowds were reliably estimated at well over 100K.
I have no idea how many people showed up, but I am fairly sure that 30,000 was not "a generous estimate". Everyone who is looking at this thing has a dog in the fight, and shockingly enough, their idea of "credible" varies with their political affiliation. The post I linked above shows what seems like a fairly credible methodology, but like every other method, it's sensitive to initial assumptions.
I'd agree that 30,000 doesn't jibe with the photos. I doubt it was as many as 100,000; I've been in crowds in DC in the 100K range, and the pictures I've seen just don't show the density required.
The idea that over a million people were present seems to be attributable to the president of FreedomWorks.
Ah, the age of precision. Estimates of the number of marchers vary from 40,000 to 2 million. To be sure, crowd size estimates are an "uncertain science," but a factor of 50 between high and low? A few aerial photos and some simple geometry should get you a figure to within at least a multiple or two of the correct value. Trouble is, as you say, no one is interested in an honest answer.
In a similar vein consider the following line from Obama's healthcare address,
This amazing statement overstates the 10 year budget savings by a factor of 250 or so. Close enough for government work!
10 years isn't the "long term", he probably means over 100 years or something. Compound interest - making small changes add up to huge numbers in politician's minds since 1842!
It's not the double standard on racists and nutbags that's the problem, the problem is the direction-less meandering of the Tea Party movement. It's fine to be angry, it's fine to protest, but until you can demonstrate the ability to transform those protesters into voters, you've got nothing. When/if the Tea Partiers go all "Ned Lamont" on some incumbent, then - and only then - will they get some respect.
Agreed. Lets see if the Tea Party movement can keep the momentum going until November, 2010.
Personally, I think it is still building with no let-up in sight.
Here's some analysis of the crowd size:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=21884
Used to enjoy reading what thoreau had to say, but he's been on about some really nutty things for a few years now.
Nobody could see those photos and believe that the crowd was merely "thousands": they lie, do they not?
The tea party needs to turn into a new third party. I frankly don't care if it's called the tea party.
If choice brings power to the people, then a 50% increase in the number of major national parties would bring alot more choice to the people.
I'm locally rather libertarian/liberal in spending (i.e. local levels of spending by county or even state) because it allows people a choice of where to live within the same country, and the types of values they want to embrace.
And I'm vehemently against growing the federal government (which any growth is a by-product of increased federal revenue).
Unfortunately, neither republicans or democrats embrace this paradigm.
I think there is room for a new 3rd party that keeps it's message and principles simple and focuses on maximizing personal freedom and electing government as a course-of-last-resort in their stances.
Until it gets organized and seperates itself from either democrats or republicans though, the tea party is going to founder.
Joe
My guess is that any new party is several elections down the road.
In the meantime, I believe the Tea Party movement will focus on defeating ANY congressman or senator who votes for an expansion of government - and that includes state or local officials.
The atypical thing about this protest is not the loonies. It's that, like other Tea Parties, protesters are not protesting any single thing. The anti-war protests had loonies, but they were anti-war. You knew what to do to make those people happier.
Here you got people protesting abortion, people calling Pelosi a Nazi (by the way, the Pelosi photo is in the Fox News website. So much for left-wing selectivity), people who think Obama is spending too much, people against socialism, people for Medicare...
Why isn't the message more focused? One possible reason - if it were, there wouldn't be a big crowd.
Megan is saying that the press is focusing on the worst protesters instead of the average ones. Ok. What does the average protester want?
As best I can tell, less federal spending is the lowest common denominator.
Less government and the spending that goes with it.
IMHO, the Tea Party movement is a Rorschach - not that different from "Hope and Change." People see in it what they want to see.
If there is any "fundamental essence" in the movement, I might try to describe it as
A lot of voters feel disenfranchised by their elected representatives and want to take their country back.
Time will tell.
Problem is, that description applies to 3/4 of voters in every country. Hard part is getting it somewhere near the realm of actual policy.
They're not calling her a nazi. It's a thought bubble. They're saying she thinks *they* are Nazis.
For another libertarian's impressions, here's Matt Welch in his Reason blog:
The most popular were variations on "Don't tread on me," "You lie," complaints about Obama's "socialism," warnings about the 2010 elections, references to the deficit or big spending, critiques of Obamacare, and (especially) cracks about various czars (including not a few that equated czars with Soviet Communism). Godwin's Corollary was satisfied on multiple occasions, including "Hitler gave great speeches, too," "the Nazis did national health care first," and someone comparing Obama's 2009 with Hitler's 1939 (alas, we didn't get to ask him whether America was about to invade Poland). Michael Moynihan did have a nice chat about George Marshall with the fellow holding a sign saying "McCarthy was right." There was an "Obama bin lyin," "Feds = treason," "Birth certificate," and "Glen Beck for president."
Shelby and ed:
Maybe federal spending was the lowest common denominator, maybe it wasn't. In a protest, there shouldn't be any doubt about what the main message is. Matt Welch continues:
Greatly outnumbering such things were references to the constitution, taking our country back, and so forth.
This is not really related to spending, is it?
Clearly, you guys are not accounting for the fact that over half the crowd were counter-demonstrators opposing the tea-baggers, nor are you accounting for the fact that the astro-turf instructions included calls for the tea-baggers to bring two mannequins and/or inflatable dolls to their rallies.
Now, to the serious comment:
The movement is leaderless, still. Leadership is the missing ingredient (Glenn Beck doesn't count), and it is only a question of when this added to the mix. Once it happens, you will see it grow in coherence, size, and influence.
What is driving this? That part is easy- these people see the federal and state governments in the process of melting down financially, and they quite correctly assess that the people in charge, both last year and and now, are aggressively incompetent and corrupt.
It's not clear that this movement will find a leader. One problem is its very incoherence. There's really no central, overriding theme here. This resembles the anti-globalism protests of ten years ago: those people too were wildly indignant over just about everything, and could never really focus on any one issue, beyond a general hatred for George W Bush once he took office. A leader who tries to lead such a movement will inveitably end up pissing off a lot of people when he can't square circles or perfect five-sided triangles to keep everyone happy. Something very similar happened with the Perot movement in the 90s, which is why it dwindled to a rump after the big initial splash it made-- and the Perotistas even started out with a leader.
Also, what spending could a serious Tea-Partier propose to cut that wouldn't outrage much of the movement? The senior citizen contingent will scream bloody murder if you go after Social Security and Medicare. The general conservative attitude of the movement precludes mass defense cuts. Well, there's the lion's share of the budget off limits! Anyone think tax increases would go down well instead?
I dunno -- I get the sense they'd be happy with a defeat/repeal of TARP, Cap & Trade and ObamaCare. It's not so much "What spending are you going to cut?" as "Why don't we not spend any more than we already are?"
Sense I get is that these people are panicked by a massive expansion of federal spending, rather than a deep desire to cut the existing budget. Attempting to spin it the other way was a nice effort though.
I don't disagree with anything you say. I just have a further observation on the Mass Protest leg of the race to the bottom: Very few people will treat the lunatics of their own side in the same representative fashion as they treat the lunatics of the opposing side. This allows many Democrats to believe that all Republicans are racists, and many Republicans to believe that all Democrats are communists.
(It also occurs to me that it shouldn't be hard, any more, to get some satellite time or UAV time-- the only thing required to get some fairly neutral crowd estimates for any given event is a little image processing software. One wonders if this could be a business model, or if we'll need to wait a few years until some decides to open source it?)
MM: The Party's Over
You got that right; Both of them. Simplest explanation of their
"Run in circles, scream and shout" behavior is that their analysts
have told them just how bad the economy is going to get, and how totally toasted is the traditional political paradigm.
The Tea Party People are the first to realize the above,
hence must bediminished by denial of the obvious;
Platy for time, guys, run the clock out until it is Game Over.
@jfa: Have you seen credible estimates
______of more than 70,000 or so?
If you have not, you have not been looking.
If you are not an expert, why estimate ?
@ Martin Gale: Trouble is, as you say,
no one is interested in an honest answer.
The Beachboys are _intensely_ interested in finding out if
the 1980's estimate of their crowd numbers is less accurate
than the 2009 head count of unhappy voters done by the
No Such Agency using satellite images of the event.
@junyo: When/if the Tea Partiers go all "Ned Lamont" on some incumbent, then and only then will they get some respect.
From whom ? They have my respect, and gratitude, already.
They are never going to get any respect from either of the
political parties, but when things economical go from bad
to "Oh my God", in plenty of time for the 2010 elections,
terrified voters of both parties will coalesce around
the Tea party groups; They need to be ready.
@Yancey Ward: The movement is leaderless...
the current leaders are incompetent and corrupt.
"We don't need another Heeeero."
No Man on a White Horse need apply.
This is not a political protest, so
there is no need to form a new party.
The message to the people's representatives
is that incompetence and corruption will
no longer be tolerated, because what was
a shameful annoyance, is now a threat to
the national survival.
@Marcus Vitruvius: Crowd image processing business model ?
Hah! Beat me to it !
Next question: If a private business can provide a vote
count on close elections, demonstrably more accurate
than the DevilBold machines, can that number be introduced
as evidence in a court of law, or does the State Tally
trump all, as in Iran ?
"From whom ? They have my respect, and gratitude, already."
Well that's what counts buddy.
But seriously, in politics, as in poker, power is directly proportionate to your ability to inflict damage on the other players. There was a time in the Democratic Party when the progressive fringe was locked in their cages during most of the year, only to be let out for the general election. Once they voted for Nader in large enough numbers to damage Gore, they gained power, and punishing Liberman was a bit of a reach, but it sent a message. Politicians are extremely self-interest motivated creatures. So no, they won't get love and affection from either major party, but a head on a stake generates a level of "we need to at least pretend to listen to you and not call you crazy in public" respect.
However, so far the Tea Partiers haven't demonstrated the ability to inflict any damage on anyone except themselves.
Re: I don't see how you can make these photos jibe with the low-tens-of-thousands estimates left-wing blogs are pushing.
There was another, larger (but much less newsworthy) event also taking place on the Mall on Saturday. That's why the aerial phoptos seem to show such a large crowd.
Those are photos of the march from Freedom Plaza, not the mall.
@junyo: Political power is the ability to punish.
Correct, as is the rest of your _political_ analysis.
Your analysis and mine differ on a point of economics,
which you seem too knowledgeable not to recognize, even
if you disagree; The US economy is going to get so much worse
that the previous political paradigm will no longer apply.