In other news, you may have heard about the Gay Rights March that happened on Sunday in Washington D.C. (partly to send a message to President Obama that he hasn't delivered on his promises to the cause of gay rights). That event, and the reaction to it by openly gay Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank, highlighted some of the issues we have looked at recently, with regard to power, the media and pseudo-events.
We generally regard a protest like the Gay Rights March to be a way for media and political attention to be brought to important but marginalized issues, whether we deem it a "pseudo-event" or not. What is more powerful than thousands of people coming together in solidarity to make their voice heard? This march certainly garnered some mainstream news media attention. Yet Barney Frank called the march "a waste of time" and said the cause would be better served by lobbying elected officials, if they really want to pressure Congress. The march, he said, would fall on deaf ears, especially seeing as most lawmakers were not in D.C. because of the holiday.
What is really interesting is who Frank said the gay rights movement should be more like:
"Gay rights advocates should borrow from the playbooks of the two most effective interest groups, the National Rifle Association and the AARP, said Frank.
'Call or write your representative or senator, and then have your friends call and write their representative or senator,' Frank said. 'That's what the NRA does. That's what the AARP does.'"
Does Frank have a point? The NRA (National Rifle Association) is undoubtedly a powerful lobby in D.C.- power accumulated through money, organization and connections. They don't have to hold rallies in D.C. because they are already on the inside. Their pseudo-events take the much more cost-effective and repeatable form of press releases, conferences, etc., coming out an office with ties to the government and the mass media. Basically, Frank is telling gay rights advocates to work within the system- write letters, develop a lobby. Is that really the most effective way to go? Are protests and marches useless when it comes to changing legislation?
The other question is whether the gay rights movement is even in the position to acquire the type of power leveraged by the NRA (or the AARP)? Both groups have constituencies that are already dominant in society: largely white, middle to upper class, male and heterosexual. Can a group coming from a position of great marginalization in our society, like homosexuals, form an equally powerful lobby?
1 comments:
I don't think protests are useless. The organizers of these protests wish to remind Americans of topics that are sometimes ignored or forgotten about in the mainstream media. They want to remind their congressmen that their constituants have not forget about these issues. The media coverage of these events, and the brief interruption of daily life in our Capitol, all, to one degree or another, accomplish these goals.
An additional advantage to these protests is that they energize their supporters to do just what Frank suggested: write and call their congressmen.
Many groups that march on DC don't have the resources, financial or otherwise, to lobby as effectivly as the NRA and AARP do. A protest is one of the better options available if their goal is to attract public and political attention.
On three occasions I have marched in protests on Washington, DC and they were amazing experiences. Perhaps that's a blog post for another day...
Post a Comment