Feel vs. believe seems like a purely semantic distinction. And I don't think that there's anything new about people voting on the basis of their instincts and hunches.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:36 AM on March 11, 2004

Kind of a dumb piece. The core point of feel vs. think is an important one, but he does nothing with it, and his examples don't work. Although there are personality reasons to dislike Bush (and personality IS valid), there are many, many more policy reasons to hate him.
posted by rushmc at 9:55 AM on March 11, 2004

Two comments: every group of people that has a government, gets the kind of government they deserve and want. It always takes a while for the government to come around to those needs and wants, but sooner or later it will, because it must. Every invader of China has eventually become Chinese.

Second, a banner seen at a WTO protest: "Abolish Capitalism and Replace it With Something Good"

Speaks volumes.
posted by kablam at 9:57 AM on March 11, 2004

"It appears that how you feel, rather than what you believe in, has become the defining feature of political protest."

Not exactly a news flash. People have been saying this since about the time of, oh, Ceaser. (It does get restated often enough.) This tory blames leftists for everything about as convincingly as the average leftist blaming the culture of dull sensations for numbing voters' minds.

I would suggest to him that people becoming disengaged from party politics says more about the parties than the voters. Also, that diverse coalitions of interest groups come together over a variety of issues, say civil rights, human rights and Log Cabin Republicans for gay marriage, doesn't mean these groups have no theoritical founding. Rather, it means that a variety of groups can have the same position on any given issue. This is a basic tenet of democracy -- for a majority of individuals to rule they must find common ground. This really isn't something to lament, and I read conservatives doing so all the time.

"The politics of self-expression are extremely influential, because they are continually affirmed by contemporary culture. Self-expression is validated as a genuine and authentic act, and is often favourably contrasted to what is perceived as the estranged artificial world of politics."

Pardon, but in the US the politics of self-expression is extremely influential because it is written into the Constitution. Self-expression is a right neccesary to a democracy.
posted by raaka at 10:28 AM on March 11, 2004

I think his point is being missed here, particularly in the FPP: the "infantilization" and reference to the 8-year old refer only to the opening paragraph, which is prefatory: some will find it agreeably disparaging (I suspect it's why it was posted), but it's not really indicative of the substance of the article. In the article itself there are the usual straw men, cherry picking individual cases as representative of the whole, but on balance, and although he spends far too many column paraphrasing and reparaphrasing a rather simple point...

He is to a great extent, right. The last paragraph sums it up pretty well:

The crowds that thronged the streets of Madrid, like the protesters that wish to vent their anger against George W Bush, are no more engaged with society than the people who watch their activities at home on TV. They are making a personal statement. It is their lifestyle choice. Such crowds echo with the voices of the disengaged. They are above all motivated by the impulse of finding meaning by taking to the streets, and do not think very much about how to influence others. It is a lonely crowd indeed.

For many, protest is largely free expression for its own sake; we've lost the knack, if we ever had it, of converting all that passion into concrete action, and I think a lot of the people who show up do so in the misplaced faith that they've achieved something simply by showing up.

You mobilize, and then: what? It's a classic case of confusing activity with achievement. If his point is that the great bulk of protestors don't seem to be accomplishing anything beyond the protest itself, as if that were the thing to be achieved, I can't sit here and tell him he's wrong.

The article is not a constructive one; it's about cutting the protestors down to size, but it's still possible to agree with some elements of it and find a constructive corollary -- learn to mobilize in meaningful ways; because if you treat the protest as the thing itself, you risk achieving precisely nothing, or worse: inuring the public to the spectacle of protest and robbing it of impact, and making it entirely too easy for your opponents to trivialize and dismiss.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:36 AM on March 11, 2004

I wonder if Frank Furedi thought to ask his son - "What exactly do you mean by that ?" - He might have discovered a more substantial critique behind the comment. My wife considers Bush and idiot....but does not believe he is stupid. having actually hung out a lot with retarded adults, I'd say these are important distinctions. supposedly highly intelligent people can behave - and often do - as idiots.

Furedi, though, is no idiot. He cleverly leads us, lambs to the slaughter, from this personal anecdote (over which he's nearly apoplectic, I've no doubt) into a straw man construction to be duly dispatched. "....In their conviction that George W Bush is mentally deficient, children have embraced the wisdom peddled by best-selling cynic Michael Moore, sophisticated media commentators from both sides of the Atlantic, and hundreds of thousands of anti-Bush protesters......"

His is a distinctly British viewpoint, and so my comments here - and his need to be viewed with that in mind. He makes sweeping pronouncements, yes, but he really seem to be excoriating the deep dislike - hatred even - of George W. Bush and his ilk by many Britons and Europeans.

All the same, I have to assume that Furedi knows full well that there are substantive grievances behind public anger at Bush - on both sides of the Atlantic, and that there are crucial issues at play here. So I have to assume that he is being intentionally misleading.

I have to wonder if Furedi is a closet monarchist for his acidic dismissal of political protestors, in our current age, as a seething, mindless and emotionally driven mob (which is obviously guided by strings pulled deftly by the likes of Michael Moore).

Further, I have to wonder about what "moderate" political reality he lives in ("It would be wrong to conclude that politics has become simply more moderate. Politics has gone into early retirement" ) - this is not my political reality on my side of the Atlantic. Witness this following hair-raising quote : "Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past - I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble - recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an 'enemy of the people.' The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, 'clan liability.' In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished 'to the ninth degree': that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed."

?????- John Derbyshire, National Review, 02-15-01

Here are some more extremist statements from the US political and religious far right.

Meanwhile, of Furedi's claims about the dispassion and political detachment of the war Protestors - "....Despite the fact that so many opposed the war, the absence of passion or the belief that protest could make a difference meant that the large numbers never amounted to a movement, at least in the old sense of the term. The personal presentation of anti-war sentiment contains an implicit renunciation of social activism and protest." - seem to me to be, frankly, bizarre and disconnected even from Furedi's own critique. Wasn't he just talking about how the protestors hated Bush so? Oh, but I suppose that's a shallow hatred uniformed by true political knowledge, and so it does not qualify as a passion. This is especially smelly Bullcrap, and on several counts.

I'm not rejecting the entirety of Furedi's analysis out of hand, but considerable sections of his analysis seem, to me, to be painfully sloppy and politically biased as well.

I'd hate to be Furedi's son, for Furedi's "Weaned-on-pickle" countenance - although I do covet his one raised eyebrow trick. Alas, I think that one's in the genes.
posted by troutfishing at 10:50 AM on March 11, 2004

Besides, David "Soapy Sam" Brooks writes a far smoother political hatchet job.

Hey.....Furedi, .....*light bulb turns on in head*

Furedi is Mr. Bean!
posted by troutfishing at 10:56 AM on March 11, 2004

If you treat the protest as the thing itself, you risk achieving precisely nothing, or worse: inuring the public to the spectacle of protest and robbing it of impact, and making it entirely too easy for your opponents to trivialize and dismiss.

Yes! But the authors point is slightly larger than that. If you treat your political views as the thing itself (that is, if you don't think seriously, soberly, and deeply before coming to a decision, but instead consider it primarily important that people have a political view to feel impassioned about), then you risk acheiving precisely nothing. You can't influence the views of others because doing so would require thinking objectively and engaging with a culture different from your own, and you can't do that because doing so would undermine your ability to feel self-righteous and impassioned and ideologically pure.

Many have become so interested in finding meaning that they've lost the ability to find objective truth, and therefore they've lost the ability to be influential and politically relevant.
posted by gd779 at 11:00 AM on March 11, 2004

I think a lot of the people who show up do so in the misplaced faith that they've achieved something simply by showing up.

That's probably true. It seems there have been times when the protest itself had an impact, most notably the March on Washington. The biggest difference between that event and current protests (at least in the US) seems to be that contemporary marches totally lack an earnest PR effort on behlaf of the participants. If you showed up to the March on Washington without a suit and tie, you may have been sent home. Now, if you were in a suit and tie, they'd think you were spying for the feds.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:07 AM on March 11, 2004

"....The crowds that thronged the streets of Madrid, like the protesters that wish to vent their anger against George W Bush, are no more engaged with society than the people who watch their activities at home on TV. They are making a personal statement. It is their lifestyle choice. Such crowds echo with the voices of the disengaged." - Research please? Isn't this guy a sociologist ? Shouldn't he cite some research to support his sweeping assertions?

But - assuming that there is some truth to his charges of political disengagement - or of ineffective attempts at engagement (which would, I think, be a more accurate characterization) - I'd have to say that Furedi is quite a bit behind the curve, as George W. Bush is providing excellent incentive for American mainstream opposed to Bush's brand of political extremism to organize and learn effective modes on engagement.

Leftist rants culled from random protest demonstrators can be silly, of course. But the quotes culled from Republican leaders in the new book "take them at their words" ("Startling, Amusing and Baffling Quotations from the G.O.P. and Their Friends, 1994-2004 by Bruce J. Miller, Diana Maio") come from Republican leaders and are just as silly and many also advocate murder and extreme forms of political violence.

Furedi's attention would be better directed towards that sort of political rhetoric, I'd say.

But to the extent that Furedi's generally correct - and extracting the nugget of truth from his political slant - perhaps the recent generations of Americans who need to re-learn effective political engagement can study This Woman. She's been at the game for a long time.
posted by troutfishing at 11:14 AM on March 11, 2004

That theme of the article, that the protestors are making a lifestyle choice, and that they choose to feel the way they do the way other people would choose which color shirt to wear, is a very tired wheeze. It's of a piece with those who claim that those who loathe the misrule of Bush and want him the hell out of office, do so because they've chosen to be "Bush haters", not because he's earned their contempt with, for example, his job performance and his own contempt for the greater part of what America actually is.

I can only think that they fall back on that because they can't actually answer the protestor's position, just as they can't really defend Bush when the facts are laid before them. So they retreat into the "you're just a Bush hater because you like being a Bush hater" crap. "You're just a protestor because it suits you." Utter shit, too weak to even be called a retort.

I've quoted this before, but I think it's apt so I'll do it again. In one of Raymond Chandler's novels, a vicious and corrupt chief of police says to Marlowe: "You just a cop hater, friend. Just a little old cop-hater." To which Marlowe replies: "There are places where cops are not hated. But in those places you wouldn't be a cop."
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:17 AM on March 11, 2004

"Many have become so interested in finding meaning that they've lost the ability to find objective truth" - gd779, I assume that, by "objective truth", you mean honest clinical research into American cultural attitudes?
posted by troutfishing at 11:18 AM on March 11, 2004

That theme of the article, that the protestors are making a lifestyle choice, and that they choose to feel the way they do the way other people would choose which color shirt to wear, is a very tired wheeze. It's of a piece with those who claim that those who loathe the misrule of Bush and want him the hell out of office, do so because they've chosen to be "Bush haters"

It's not about Bush vs. Kerry, or even about Right vs. Wrong. I don't care about that right now. We're all right. We're all wrong. It's about feeling vs. thinking, passion vs. dispassion, and personal meaning vs honest intellectual rigor.

So many people today are too intellectually lazy to discipline their emotions and think deeply and dispassionately about their political beliefs. Without making that effort, it's impossible to approach truth, but most people don't do it because they have come to believe that the most important thing is to have beliefs, and to feel passionately about them. In giving their emotional needs primacy, then, they risk political irrelevance at best, and at worst they undermine the effectiveness of democracy, because democracy relies on a thoughtful and engaged people. As Shaw said, "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve".
posted by gd779 at 11:43 AM on March 11, 2004

Many have become so interested in finding meaning that they've lost the ability to find objective truth...
Like the administration and Iraq? (could not resist--way too easy)
I think that there have always been people pointing out the truth, whether it's by protesting on the streets or resigning from their positions, or just shouting it from a rooftop, etc--the problem is that they're marginalized and not heard.

Of course, the timidity of the media (and other branches of government through checks and balances), whose job it is to investigate and find out what the actual truth is, instead of parroting whatever spin and lies they're told, has a lot to do with that.
posted by amberglow at 12:43 PM on March 11, 2004

Gasp! It's soooo true! *bangs head against wall* We have not been thinking deeply and dispassionately enough about our beliefs! How does he do it? How does he see so deeply into our souls? *rends hair, makes note to think more deeply and dispassionately about beliefs*

Sheesh.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:48 PM on March 11, 2004

About Furedi and the merry band of ex-trotskyites he's leading, see this George Monbiot piece. Troutfishing, you might find his involvement in the Sense About Science pro-GM group, interesting...
posted by talos at 1:11 PM on March 11, 2004

Aha. Ho ho ho. Thanks, Talos. Something smelled fishy to me about Furedi. I vaguely recalled that "Spiked" was twisted. Odd - they sent me an email a few days ago asking for my participation in a forum which was addressing the question of whether risk aversion in industrialized nations was hampering scientific progress. I bothered to respond but I doubt they'll print my reply. I basically said, in more polite terms, that I though the question insane.

The overall demeanor of the site makes far more sense now that I know they are on the corporate dole and working, partly at least, as shills.
posted by troutfishing at 2:32 PM on March 11, 2004

gd779 - so, where do I find this objective truth?
posted by troutfishing at 2:34 PM on March 11, 2004

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

My only other comment is that Furedi could have easily found similar people on the right with the same affliction. But I suppose that would have been inconvenient.
posted by pyramid termite at 3:14 PM on March 11, 2004

gd779 - so, where do I find this objective truth?

Echoes of Pilate's "what is truth?", perhaps?
posted by namespan at 11:57 PM on March 11, 2004

pyramid termite - so who's the rough beast? Could it be.....W ?!

namespan - that would make gd779 sort of like, you know, Jesus ? Where are my thuggish Roman Centurions? Give me that whip with the nasty metal bits on the end!

______________________________________________


Waah! Waaaaaah WaaaaaaaaaaaaH!!! *sucks on pacifier, shuts up*
posted by troutfishing at 5:56 AM on March 12, 2004

That theme of the article, that the protestors are making a lifestyle choice, and that they choose to feel the way they do the way other people would choose which color shirt to wear, is a very tired wheeze. It's of a piece with those who claim that those who loathe the misrule of Bush and want him the hell out of office, do so because they've chosen to be "Bush haters"

And, I would add, this is a classic case of projection, pinning upon one's opponents the characteristics that one loathes in oneself. Furedi and his ilk feel shame about their ill-founded Clinton hatred and have invented its mirror image so they can fulminate against it.
posted by Holden at 9:13 AM on March 12, 2004

And he bases his conclusions on the testimony of an 8-year-old, Vanessa Redgrave and an unidentified voter in California.

I'll bet he's embarrassed.
posted by Holden at 9:23 AM on March 12, 2004

Furedi, he's just a big baby. Waaah! Waaaaaaah!
posted by troutfishing at 3:01 PM on March 12, 2004

I'm just not convinced that the range of protest from gut wrenching civil disobedience to feel good demonstrations are nearly as ineffective as internet pundits tend to assume. Since Vietnam, military leaders have avoided (or at least hidden) the historically effective scorched earth policies of warfare for pure PR reasons.

Furthermore, the Neocon agenda plainly extended much farther than Iraq. When I protest a coming war and the machinery is in motion, I'm really protesting the unnamed war after that. The US hasn't invaded Iran or Syria yet and the cost at home, both political and physical, has probably factored into that delay.

Even ineffective protest may serve a historical function. Southern newspaper accounts of runaway and recaptured slaves show historians that the idea of of the "happy slave" was a lie. The tale of the White Rose Society shows us that Germans were not only aware of the horrors of the holocaust, but that many put their lives down to fight it.

Even if the sole outcome of modern protest is to make the individual protester feel empowered, I see no fault in this. "Be the change you want to see in the world," said Gandhi.

Whenever I've pushed this debate far enough with a rival, they tend to land on the ideology that the only effective tool of political change is outright armed rebellion, despite the glaring evidence from the Civil Rights movement that civil disobedience works in America. I just don't see the NRA militant crowd doing diddly shit to fight the police state in America and I never see them succeeding in creating any better system than we have now. Meanwhile, current civil disobedience has been in a constant and sometimes policy changing confrontation with riot police.

So I'll ask again, if peaceful protest is not an effective political tool, then what is? Voting and writing politicians will only carry your message so far. Sound bite culture drowns out intellectual debate for the masses. When people congregate in modern protests, they do indeed build communities and movements, but for some reasons (probably lack of strong MLK-esque leadership, the abundance and diversity of issues to address and trolling) most of these movements have been slow to grow mainstream.
posted by Skwirl at 4:59 PM on March 12, 2004

Swwirl - You leave much to contemplate there.

"When I protest a coming war and the machinery is in motion, I'm really protesting the unnamed war after that." - if one is aware of a political agenda telegraphed in advance, as they sometimes are and as the Bush Neocon agenda surely was, then one will undoubtedly be far ahead of mainstream awareness. So, so this protest just may forestall or even prevent the extreme elements of that agenda, but it will never bring recognition. That is bittersweet - but is overt reward the point?

Thank you for that comment. In these dark days, few are willing to stand up for the force of the human spirit and opt, instead, for the power which flows from the barrel of a gun.

Have you read "Lest innocent Blood be shed"? I studied it in a nonviolence class some 26 or 27 years ago but it's message seems impressed on my spirit somehow.
posted by troutfishing at 9:36 PM on March 12, 2004

I apologize. "Skwirl, you leave me...."
posted by troutfishing at 9:38 PM on March 12, 2004