We have faced the undeniable fact that the left generally--and that very much includes us--hasn't been effective. Look at our chronic election results in the Fox River Valley, Illinois, area. Look at our local candidates for state and federal office. We're represented by Hastert! And look at the tiny size of the "peace" community, even at its peak with the Iraq debacle raging (500, perhaps?), compared to the total population of this area (about 390,000). We think the world we are in today is a lot closer to being a totalitarian fascist state than was the one which we used to deplore back in the late '60s and early '70s. We think the "movement" has to accept some responsibility for where America is, politically, today. Our impact is most conspicuous in its absence.

After 30 years of watching how dissent--getting a big crowd together and yelling sound-bites--alone plays out, we no longer think it is the way to go. Make that the only way to go. It appears there are at least two fronts. One is the battle with the government currently in power. Dissent is one of the things we can do with regards to that. It is possible that, if enough people turn out for a demonstration, some politicians might see us as a potential voting block and take steps to avoid alienating us. Demonstrations must play to the cameras, the reporters and those lying crowd estimators, which makes a huge crowd critical. Otherwise, all we're doing is showing the politicians how few of us there are, letting them know they have absolutely nothing to worry about. The population of the USA is somewhere around 281, 000, 000. Ten percent is 28,000,000, no? One percent is 2,800,000. We don't think we had more than 5% of the population doing anything--even logging onto a web anti-Iraq war petition--to indicate to politicians that they were annoyed enough with what the government was doing to create a problem on election day. We don't think 5% would be anywhere near enough to strike terror into a politician's heart. The bottom line is that, we have to be careful how we use public dissent. Politicians can count. They also can tell a rebellious under-25-year-old (and likely future Republican, see the Boomers) from a middle-aged, middle-class, property-owning, dependable voter.  

The solution, if any, lies on the other front--the ordinary American, whatever that is. We simply must get more of them to agree with us. We probably mean the active flag-wavers, as well as the great silent majority who don't think government action really has anything to with them; or who have a bad feeling about it all but don't think there's anything they can do about it (a message the left has been sending them for years, we fear); or who are under the mistaken impression that what the government does benefits them, personally; or who think myriad other things we aren't coming up with at the moment, leading them to the conclusion that the government does not need to be reigned in, at least not through any effort by them. Those are the people we need to address--to at least contact and take a stab at persuading to join us out in the street or, better yet, at the polls so we may get Washington to pay more attention.

We think seduction--affinity, friendly connection with those who see things differently, and positive alternatives designed to lure others into a new way of looking at things--is an approach worth experimenting with. Yet the vast majority of today's approaches, like yesterday's, are only about expressing dissent. Dissent straight up annoys the ordinary American. We think better approaches would include getting in touch with the majority's views, attempting to persuade those who reject our views to reconsider, and offering irresistibly sensible, enticing alternatives. In short, we think we should try making it possible for people in general--including ourselves--to change their minds enough to form a political base that might be able to eradicate the cruel political forces which now threaten this planet.

Last March, we read a short article in Utne that really pissed us off. It was called, "Make Protests Fun: 1-2-3-4 we don't want shrill chants no more." (Utne, March-April, 2003, at page 68.) "What's this noise," we thought. The article by Jessica Misslin, was about a guy (Mark Sommer) who was suggesting, as an alternative, that the left stage renaissance faire-type gatherings where alternative technologies are exhibited, music is played, a farmer's market takes place, etc. "Give me a break," we ranted at each other. But we kept going back and reading the thing again, referring to it in our conversations, citing it to others in email. We finally got past our prejudice--which very much favors shrill chants, expressions of defiance and dissent, the hell, no! approach--and got to where we could give fair consideration to his seemingly goofy, certainly tepid idea.

"To be driven by fear and anger more than hope and determination is to catch the very illness we seek to combat," Sommer said. His general proposal was to get back to the definition of "demonstration"--to make the political demo a demo of the kind of world he seeks to create. For him, that meant alternative energy stuff, gardening stuff, musical stuff, etc. We think some of Sommer's ideas are rather far afield from addressing the immediate political problems created by the Bush administration, but we don't think his notions would hurt anything, and they could at least promote the emergence of alternative communities in places which lack them, such as the Fox Valley. We'd want to include other things--stuff about how we might reasonably expect our government to approach conflict resolution, as well as suggestions for new priorities. For us, that would mean ideas that go on beyond materialism, and into valuing human experiences, including enjoyment of each other, of positive relationships with each other, as well as other sensory, intellectual and aesthetic pleasures--joyous living, ragged joy. We do heartily agree with Sommer's root idea that demonstrations should be a marketplace of ideas and initiatives--affirmative ideas, for the most part. We also would be tempted to introduce some basic ritual techniques, lots of theater, connective group stuff. As Sommer concludes, "It's best not to condemn where they stand but move to a better place and invite them over." This, incidentally, is precisely what we are doing--or trying to do--with our Conversation Salon (http://www.elginsalon.org).

We came across yet another affirmation of this approach in Clamor magazine (May-June, 2003, at page 41). The article is called "Oppressive Vegans are Killing the Movement." The author, Joe Diffie, starts out with a lot of complaints about how, as a meat-eating, booze-loving smoker, he has been shunned and otherwise persecuted by his fellow seekers of a better world, such as Greenpeace activists he encountered in Europe, etc. He speaks of proudly waving his wiener wherever he goes. Hang him, was our very first reaction. But then he got into the real stuff:

"Some argue that boldly and confrontationally blaring your opinion every chance that you get is an effective form of activism, but I disagree. In fact, I disagree boldly and confrontationally. I think that it is bourgeois status-quo activism. Activism that seeks to make the activist look perfect, forcing anyone who wants to change the world to copy their style. . .Activism that has been tried over and over with questionable results . . .Activism that needs to evolve."

Diffie calls for activism which uses symbolic actions,

". . . that leave the target with no one to argue with except their conscience. . . .Activists need to move beyond rehearsed speeches that nobody wants to listen to. Let's infect the American mind instead of running up against it."

Our word is "seduce" rather than "infect" but it's the same idea, really.

Diffie ends with,

"I want to see more psychological activism. Think about different thought patterns and different routes of persuasion. Browbeating a point home does not work. Think of how you react when a fundamentalist starts bible-beating. Is your tirade about vegetarianism very different? Is my article any different? What is it going to realistically take to make our movement something that changes America? A mediocre parade of shortsighted people who let minor differences create major problems is not enough."

We think these people make sense. They have done a better job than we have, so far, of spitting it out. We think we should be looking at demos the way a poet looks at language. Poetry can't be too wordy. Our demos aren't likely to be well-populated, unfortunately, simply because we represent such a teeny minority view. So, like a poet uses few words well, we should use few people well. We think of some of the things Abbie Hoffman did, such as tossing the bucks into the stock exchange and letting the press record those little piggies scrambling for them. That was living poetry, albeit of the clownish variety that characterized Abbie's life, for better or worse. Diffie calls for "effective modern actions . . .that cause people to question their basic assumptions about America without face to face dialog." Again, we don't think this is the ONLY thing the left should be doing. We believe in the effectiveness of face to face dialog--not debate or dueling monologs, but dialog. We believe in the effectiveness of really large marches, for that matter. However, we think the visual poetry approach might make for a better drive-by than a "hooray for our side" roadside vigil or rally, which provokes anger, conflict and polarization.

Recently, while we were driving around on a bright, gorgeous early May Saturday afternoon buying candy bars and vitamins, we contemplated what kind of roadside visual might make us drop our own conversation, enjoyment of radio tunes, pondering of where we might be able to find Zagnuts, etc., and even notice, at 55 mph, a group standing out on Randall Rd., let alone give serious consideration to their signs reading, "Read Your Bible!" or "United We Stand!" or "Abortion is Murder!" We concluded just about nothing would do the trick. At the most, we'd get the gist of the abhorrent notion, mutter, "jerks," maybe get a rush of real anger, have a flash about circling around and going by again to give 'em the finger and then go home and forget about it. Exactly the way people who disagree with us react to us, we imagine. Again, we don't think roadside vigils are the way to go if the goal is to change people's minds, or even to jolt them into opening their minds.

We have more ideas regarding the sorts of visuals which might have a positive drive-by effect. One idea is to employ humor and wit. We've noticed that we enjoy some statements of philosophy which are 180 degrees from our views when they are witty, nevertheless. It doesn't change our minds, but it softens our emotional reaction to the mind who composed the statement--makes us think, well, they aren't all complete dolts. Wit can bring thinking people closer together, help open communication channels. Beauty is another device that we think the left should consider employing. Welcoming invitation, seduction, and perhaps, infection, as Diffie puts it. We suggest that the latter be done as infectious fun.

There used to be a person in the Fox River Valley area known as "The Fox." Just like Zorro, s/he would sweep in and out deep in the night, committing acts of poetic terrorism directed at area environmental travesties. No one knew who The Fox was, but it seemed to be just one human being; certainly not more than a small handful of people. The Fox did things like spray-painted verbal and symbolic messages on polluters' property, gave them some of their foul-smelling stuff right back in their entryways, generally came up with remarkably witty and creative ways to put the mark of shame and blame on those who were wrecking the Fox River and its surrounds. There was a sense that The Fox was not just some kid, but a caring adult. The press always gave The Fox lots of  good coverage--the mystery of his identity alone made the story engaging--and people in the area came to respect his judgment. He only attacked those who really deserved it. He most definitely put corporate polluters on the defensive and stimulated community action and quite a bit of change. Today, the Fox River is considerably cleaner than it was when The Fox started his operations back in the early 70s, if we remember right. There's got to be a way to use tactics like his today to awaken the general public. 

We're not claiming to have the secret formula for saving the world, for Pete's sake. We think activist groups need to sit down in a brainstorming circle, strip away every assumption and start all over with formulating strategic responses to the problem of how to radically change this society which now is being defined mainly by our terribly corrupt government and its ruthless corporate masters. How, indeed, can we get ordinary people to realize that their best interests are not served by policies which benefit the Bush family? By communicating with them and giving them a fair crack at communicating back at us, maybe. We like Geri Solomon and Tim Beuhausen's Town Meeting notion (An Aurora, IL event; townmeets@aol.com for info)--gathering people to hear an informed panel address a topic and to discuss it afterwards together. We also really like Joy Pryor's Bughouse Square idea. That would be a community gathering modeled on the College of Complexes in Chicago. The format would be something like inviting two speakers with differing views to address a topic. The speakers would start it off and rant for 15 minutes each, maybe. The rest of the time, the mike would be passed around the open area, if it's outside, or the room if it's inside, and the attendees would be given a chance to spout off. We'd expand on it by announcing frequent breaks to let people get into smaller groups, get to know each other and, most important, communicate. Ideas like these forward the cause of allowing people to recognize the weaknesses and strengths of both their own positions and of the "other side." They up the chances of blurring the line between "sides," and of maybe, someday, getting rid of the "sides" mentality altogether. 

Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune recently chided people on both sides of the line to set aside their assumptions and prejudices and really take an honest, unbiased look at the opposing point of view on the Iraq situation. ("Hawks, doves: Look for foes' 'partial truths,'" April 3, 2003 - about 1/3 of the way down page) . He urged no less than that we let down our guard and hold ourselves open to the possibility of having our minds changed. Peace work ultimately may require some movement from the extremes of the left, as well as from the extremes of the right. We have to be at least as open-minded as we expect mainstream Americans to be. 

We also think that promotion of reasonable candidates, especially for president in 2004, should be at the top of the movement's agenda. That effort should begin now, before the Democrats choose another disastrous Republican in a donkey suit. Dennis Kucinich is at the top of our personal favorite list. Howard Dean is second.

In sum, we have to be inventors, explorers, experimenters. We have to view illegitimate government action, such as our recent attack on Iraq, as an opportunity to come up with a creative response, something completely new and unexpected, something which has never been tried before. A response that is calculated not to create yet another war-like scene, but which is conciliatory, peaceable, loving and, most important, seductive--something which forwards the notion that confrontation and fighting are not the only ways to deal with conflicts. Something which offers an affirmative alternative that both makes a point and is far more attractive than the status quo. Something which actually educates the police officers and onlookers who experience it in the ways of peace. If this can't be done, then maybe we should all stop hollering "Peace! Now!" and accept the ugly reality that we have no better idea of what to do about conflict than does Bush, et al. There's got to be better ways to sow seeds for a new society than by imitating the methods of those who can't imagine peace. Finding them could be a fulfilling, meaningful form of excellent fun. Failing to do so could mean a substantial deferment of dreams for us, our children and generations to come. 

Sound like something you can get behind? We're looking for more people to brainstorm with, create with, turn the world upside down with. We'd love to have you join us in these efforts. Email us (link below) or leave a message on our voice mail:  (847) 622-3693.

Return to Left Bank Projects
Left Bank Projects site is maintained by L. Robin Slater;
Content by Kathy Hamill.