Do Big Marches Still Matter?

Before the big National Equality Rights March last Sunday, Barney Frank flashed his trademark exasperation at the idea that the demonstration would push lawmakers on gay rights. “The only thing they’ll be putting pressure on is the grass,” he said.

Pam Spaulding reciprocated with some annoyance of her own. “I’m scratching my head on this. OK, so the march isn’t his bag, why not simply say nothing rather than to continue tossing out the barbs?”

While it certainly sucks to have the country’s most prominent openly gay politician call the National Equality March  a big waste of time,  isn’t Frank essentially correct in saying that big rallies like the NEM have little influence on policymakers? To the extent that the  mass demonstrations of the 1960s were effective in spurring policy changes  — and  there’s an argument we could probably have  about how true that may be — those rallies took place when big events monopolized the coverage of a handful of news outlets. That’s a markedly different media landscape than our current one.  There’s also the issue of march fatigue: according to Wikipedia, there have been nine big rallies in D.C. just this year. How much attention are lawmakers paying to any of these events?

There are undoubtedly tons of ancillary organizational benefits that come with big demonstrations. They allow advocacy groups with similar objectives to coordinate and network, to say nothing of the catharsis and goodwill that comes with rubbing shoulders with like-minded people. But to say they have a direct affect on policy seems like a stretch.

G.D.

G.D.

Gene "G.D." Demby is the founder and editor of PostBourgie. In his day job, he blogs and reports on race and ethnicity for NPR's Code Switch team.
G.D.

Latest posts by G.D. (see all)

  • Maybe the internet is the equivalent of the 1960s march – i.e., an enormous gathering of like-minded people. Problem is virtual nature of it makes it seem less powerful than it is (or actually reduces power of the masses).

    W/communications and transportation technologies what they are today, the emphasis of people making the trip to DC to gather together in protest just isn’t as compelling.

    I think protest works, but these big marches should probably be the kick off or final rally of long, sustained small/local protests and consistent, widespread organizing and repeated Congressional visiting. I’ve only done one Capitol Hill day with an advocacy group but I was impressed how many organized groups were up there, often women and in matching t-shirts, pressing the flesh of their politicians for their issues.

  • Short answer: no.

    Longer answer: most marches are one step above slacktivism.

    I think Leigh makes a really good point about visiting Congressional reps, though.

  • pprscribe

    I think we can look at the image that you posted along with this for part of an answer. Big marches are still hugely important. As symbols that can give shape and form to more sustained and more “direct” activities. As proof that there are large masses of like-minded people. As visibility for people may be presumed to be nonexistent and invisible.

    I think Frank’s comments, though, were also important as they were a reminder not to stop there…a kick in the butt for anyone who may feel like marching is enough. Though his quip was quite clever, missing in a lot of the retelling of it was that he offered concrete, constructive ideas about how he thinks the movement(s) should go forward.

  • I started writing a reply, but I’m gonna post a reply on my blog instead if you don’t mind. :)

  • Pingback: Response to “Do Big Marches Still Matter?” « a better world is probable!()

  • I used to think marches mattered more. These days I feel jaded as I saw the largest marches in recent years calling for immigration reform. It’s almost 2010, we have a democratic president and both houses of Congress and yet we still have not seen a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Was it our [organizers’] faults that the only thing that happened after the huge 2006 May 1st/Day Without an Immigrant marches was enforcement legislation focusing on employers and the stupid border wall? In fact, after the ’06 marches, we started seeing an increase in raids culminating with the largest raid ever in Postville, Iowa in May 2008. Obama is supportive, but hasn’t done much aside rfom halting the ICE raids.

    I know the march/rally is just one aspect in a social movement. I’ve done the letter writing, the lobbying, the teach-ins, registering voters and voting. The marches are good for those who don’t have the time to be involved, it allows you to show marginal support even if you can’t register to vote (as in the case of many immigrants). There were a million people out in the LA streets on May 1, 2006. I doubt few are still directly involved in organizing, unless they were part of some group or union. That’s bad organizing and a wasted opportunity.

  • This is interesting. A lot of political scientists think that, beyond the idea of public marches/spectacles, public opinion doesn’t matter either, at least in the formation of social policy. The idea is the policies emerge from political concessions, the structure of which politicians face threat of losing their position, etc etc and basically operates above (and irrespective) of the realm of public opinion. So, 80% of Americans can approve of a public option, for example, but healthcare reform rests on the shoulders of Blue Dogs or certain politicians with elderly electorates worried about re-election in the midterm elections. This is a crude example, but the basic idea is that the State (big “S”) is often only marginally affected by public opinion or discourse.

    There’s some truth to this, but as G.D. notes, public events like marches and protests can also be a valuable tool for information dissemination and other forms of networking or coalition building.

  • Molly

    it was a response to “slactivism”

  • Ron

    I think people have rally fatigue. While I was in college, Angela Davis came to speak on campus and people were asking her about marches this and rallies that in the context of today’s problems and she said something very smart. She said something along the lines of, “That’s why generation did. You all have to figure out in an age where communications is different how to stage your own protests and change the game in ways that are fundamental to your times.”

    I think using the tactics are yore can be instructive, but, it defies the idea that what people did in those days was earthshattering. They wrecked their world and effectively say, “Enough of this. We’ve had enough.”

    We haven’t seen any protests of that magnitude today, because people haven’t quite figured out how to keep up with the shifting trends in a way to really capture the attention of everyone. And the most successful people doing that today are committing massive atrocities in the name of religion or whatever else they can come up with. But that’s not really new.

  • Molly

    btw, in all sincerity, I think all acts of protest are very important and I like social involvement by all people–I think that everyone deserves credit for engaging in social justice efforts, and I have seen a lot of examples of ways that people can horde their assets and empathize with and advocate for no one. I hate the way that liberals throw around “entitlement” like an insult (it was discussed at length on this blog, but I have always observed that the worst thing one progressive can do to another is accuse her of being rich), when there are huge segments of the population who are so wealthy that they do not have to address the rest of the country on any real level, and therefore do nothing in the name of progress, and yet they move through live unscathed by criticism, while justice-seeking progressives are subjected to constant feedback. I did not mean to contribute to factionalism among progressives–I dont see teabaggers fighting amongst themselves–I just wanted to identify with her annoyance, plus I had too much coffee yesterday.