Ask Auntie Pinko
April 24, 2003

Dear Auntie Pinko,

I've participated in several NYC area protests, but with the budget crisis I'm feeling conflicted about advocating for/participating in more such marches, and am adamantly opposed to civil disobedience (blocking traffic, etc). Why? Because making this cash-strapped city pay police overtime to mind the march when cutbacks to after-school programs as well as emergency services and firehouses (scary for a city on permanent orange alert) seems to me to be not the best use of city funds at this time.

I'm also tending toward the depressing thought that it doesn't really matter anyway. Bush, Rumsfeld et al are rolling ever onward and the media is simply standing there, waving flags. It's incredibly depressing to take part in something that feels HUGE as you participate and see that, in terms of the state and national consciousness, it never happened.

I know that protests do other things, too, (i.e., affirm that you're not part of a mad, miniscule group like-minded people), but it doesn't quite seem to be enough to rouse me to action.

Thoughts on this?

Thanks,

Renska
New York City, NY

Dear Renska,

The first thought that I have is this: If you are not getting some level of personal fulfillment from attending the protests - and even the feeling that you are doing what you can in the face of overwhelming odds can be some level of fulfillment - then stop attending them. Turn your energy in other directions. Write letters, sponsor a book club or discussion group, design a work of art and display it, whatever will give you that fulfillment is what you should be doing.

That said; your letter raises other questions, some of them troubling. Budget crises in local jurisdictions are very real, and painful cuts will be necessary in many places for many reasons. But to assume that the choice is automatically between police overtime to "mind the march," and after-school programs and emergency response services is a false dichotomy. And one that serves the interests attempting to quell the tide of protest in America, at that.

Auntie Pinko suspects that posing this "either/or" alternative in so emotionally arresting a manner might actually be a sign that the protests are working. The strategies of Mr. Bush's Administration and its allies have thus far included ignoring protests in the corporate-controlled media, demonizing the marchers and the leadership, and constantly ascribing the activities to a "minority" or a "fringe group" of people with socially-unacceptable motives and habits. Yet in spite of applying these strategies enthusiastically and consistently, they have not sufficed to suppress dissent. Perhaps the "appeal to the civic instincts of the protestors" strategy is the next trick in their bag?

Even if this is not a calculated strategy, Renska, it remains a false dichotomy. While city financial crises are real, the cost of maintaining police vigilance over peaceful protestors is not a direct and inescapable cause of cutting municipal services. There is a large menu of revenue-generating and cost-cutting alternatives available to city officials, and all of them will annoy some segment of the voting (and campaign-contributing) public.

By blaming you and your fellow-protestors for the unpopular decisions they are making, city officials can avoid making some even more unpopular decisions - like raising taxes, or charging higher fees to those who use certain city services, or cutting their own salaries, or eliminating subsidies to developers, or any of a number of other unpleasant alternatives. They can also avoid blaming Mr. Bush's administration for leaving Mr. bin Laden and so many of his operatives at large, for not fully funding the additional security measures needed during the war Mr. Bush started and the occupation of Iraq he created, and for running huge deficits that have damaged the economy at all levels.

A bunch of no-good, disloyal, appeasing, traitorous protestors makes a much better scapegoat, don't you think?

Frankly, this argument reminds me of a scene from one of Auntie Pinko's favorite movies, Blazing Saddles. The newly-appointed black sheriff shows the white townspeople his appointment from the Governor, and they start turning into an angry lynch mob. So the sheriff pulls out his gun, presses it to his own head, and "'takes himself hostage," growling "Nobody move, or the (ahem) gets it," then raising his voice to a pathetic plea "please, don't nobody move." Someone from the crowd says "He really means it!" and they all back off, allowing the sheriff to "drag himself" to his office, away from the mob.

So by all means, re-evaluate your own satisfaction in participating in the protest marches, Renska. But base your final decision on what best enables you to live out your ideals, your conscience, and your duty to your country and your Constitution as you see it. Base it on what makes you feel most like you have done your part to ensure the freedom of your children and grandchildren in an America that cherishes the essential values our republic was founded upon.

If some other form of action can help you realize these ideals, by all means, choose it! But don't let your choice be governed by the calculating manipulations of those against whom you are protesting. And thanks for sharing your dilemma with Auntie Pinko!

View Auntie's Archive

Do you have a question for Auntie Pinko?

Do political discusions discombobulate you? Are you a liberal at a loss for words when those darned dittoheads babble their talking points at you? Or a conservative, who just can't understand those pesky liberals and their silliness? Auntie Pinko has an answer for everything.

Just send e-mail to: [email protected], and make sure it says "A question for Auntie Pinko" in the subject line. Please include your name and hometown.