A city councilor shouted at while walking to lunch. A school board member confronted at a restaurant during breakfast with his mother. A mayor experiencing repeated vandalism to his home. A legislator receiving actual death threats in response to a bill she’s sponsored.
Maybe you know what specific, real-life situation each of these stories refers to. And maybe you know of enough incidents that you’re not sure. Either way, you’re not wrong.
Over the past couple of weeks, bills have been heard, meetings have been disrupted, and several media organizations and community leaders have reminded us that harassment and violence towards elected officials – at the local, state, and national level – isn’t new, nor is it acceptable.
But here’s what activists don’t seem to understand when they try to intimidate, rather than persuade: real power isn’t about force, it’s about influence. No long-term policy strategy has ever been accomplished by threatening an elected official. Fear and respect are two different things. Influence is based in relationships. And no relationship has ever been built by deploying a megaphone, or picketing someone’s home.
Relationships are why one constituent with a personal story will always be more persuasive than a flood of form letters.
Relationships are the reason that the best lobbyists and organizers don’t wield checkbooks, they wield information. They know the issues, sure, but more importantly they know the person behind the election certificate. They have relationships based on years of working with elected officials, not threatening them.
Relationships are where trust is built. And trust is an enormous commodity in governing.
Some activists don’t know enough to know the difference. They see fictionalized accounts of demonstrations making a big change, and they (erroneously) believe that the louder they are, the more effective they will be. The more they frame their wants as demands, the more seriously they’ll be taken.
And then they find out that’s not the truth.
Even the big, loud rallies in the capitol rotunda don’t actually move policy. You’ll see this in the issues that are getting traction this legislative session – the demonstrations aren’t the motivating factor. The quiet, behind-the-scenes work, often taking years, is what really gets things done. Rallies and protests are good for raising awareness, for channeling feelings and for fundraising. But real change requires less in-your-face tactics.
[image_caption]Shannon Watson[/image_caption]
Intimidation is not OK, it’s not effective, and it makes our democracy a little bit worse. Those people who do step up to run, despite the chaos, are commended for their courage. But should they have to exhibit that kind of bravery, and assume that risk, to participate in public service?
If you want to make a change, try to start with a quiet conversation. If your message isn’t getting through, it doesn’t need to be louder, it needs to be better.
Shannon Watson is the executive director of Majority in the Middle.
Those at the extremes enjoy the greatest leverage. – Mechanical Engineering 101
It is also the most common cause of avoidable catastrophic failures. Mechanical Engineering 103. Despite what you think, Dennis, education can have its benefits. People who simply apply leverage while being completely ignorant of the system to which they are applying that leverage shouldn’t have access to the system.
“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
A demonstration of rudeness and bad manners.
I want to clarify at the start of this comment that I do not advocate violence or threatening behavior. I am proponent of nonviolent protest through and through. With that being said, I think the author of this article is at best unsympathetic towards the plight of those who participate in demonstrations and at worst naïve to what it takes to move a system that protects the status quo. There is a reason that people are angry. For a lot of people, American society has failed them and they see no signs of our society changing the way it functions. Imagine telling MLK and those in the freedom march that demonstrations aren’t effective or that they shouldn’t frame their goals as demands. Calling out violence and threatening behavior as bad is obvious and I think the vast majority of people would agree for the obvious reasons, but to lump in nonviolent protests like picketing and using a megaphone with violence and intimidation is asinine.
Yes, cosign all of this. As a genderqueer parent, it’s kind of hard for me to “use my influence” and make a better argument than “I would like the ability to live my life in peace and parent my child without the interference of the government.” But for many on the right, just my existence is a threat, and I shouldn’t have to convince someone of my humanity. Many folks who protest are in the same boat – systemically kept out of places of power, so using the tools we have. To compare activists who are begging to be seen with lobbyists is at best naive and at worst horribly cruel.
Yay, more centrist garbage masquerading as insight. Well, I guess when your stated worldview is “change is scary, the status quo is ideal” being threatened for that idea by people harmed by it would seem bizarre. No worries though, I imagine when those of us with a spine defend ourselves from the barbarians at the gate, useless, convictionless, centrists will glom on as always.
The Middle has spoken! In order to effect change, we must take months or years to become insiders, and use our leverage as insiders to make change – not too much change, just a “moderate” amount. Corporate media relations departments can issue congratulatory media releases about their “community partnerships,” and politicians can trumpet their willingness to build bridges to solve problems.
This “virtue signaling from the middle” strategy is fine if you’re already on the track to being an insider. If you’re part of a disfavored demographic – and like it or not, American politics looks at demographics – you’re out of luck. You are not going to insinuate yourself as an insider unless you are willing to co-opt your goals and let them be put on the back burner until the other members of the clique are willing to consider the idea. Which, of course, may or may not happen.
This is in no way an endorsement of violence. Rejecting “moderation” as the panacea for political and social issues is, however, ridiculous. Martin Luther King – who had much to say besides that one comfortable line from that one speech that conservatives and moderates like to endorse to show they’re not racist – put it best in Letter from Birmingham Jail:
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.
The thought of Jan 6 comes to mind, so I guess a few folks here would have no problem supporting those Jan 6 folks for having the gumption to attack the hordes trying to take over their country, suspect it would be tough calling them moderates? Be they right or left, as a extremist you would have to at least appreciate their conviction to the cause. Seems the moderates are getting pounded by the right and the left, would this be a better place if they split from the middle and ~ 50% moved ultra left and the other 50% ultra right? I think the moderates have plenty of gumption, especially the gumption to resist the daily and continuous attacks from the right and the left, either we are too woke, or not woke enough! I don’t think we are some how all a bunch of cowards or dummies to take a stand that our wokeness or lack thereof is none of your business, maybe we don’t want to wear it on our sleeve. Can there not be more than 2 views on politics? Or is it ultra-red hat or ultra blue hat the only choice and nothing inbetween?
Therein lies the core problem of the “moderate”. The assumption that there exists, for every issue, problem, or opinion, a position perfectly poised between either pole. That always the correct and proper response to any question is to find a position exactly between the two prevailing opinions, that there is never right or wrong, but ALWAYS some gradiation that will perfectly span the divide between. Sometimes there’s right and there’s wrong, and nothing lies between.
Hate to disappoint, but from this perspective, there is no assumption “that there exists, for every issue, problem, or opinion, a position perfectly poised between either pole.” Something more akin to perhaps we can find and agree on a better solution for all of us, than, my way or the highway extremist thinking. After all the goal is “in order to form a more perfect union”.
Well, violence threats and intimidation are no foundation for democracy obviously. However we’ve all seen multiple examples of elected officials, even ones we ordinarily “like” and support, who are more influenced by power, access, and elites than their constituents. Stadium battles, rent control, zoning, etc. etc.
So while we don’t want threats and intimidation to be elements of governance, we also can’t turn a blind eye to the imbalance of power and influence that we frequently see. One thing it is to have the power and influence of elected office, another it is to have complete immunity for any actions or decisions made while in office. Yes, ultimately we can vote people out, but that doesn’t mean in the interim we must be silent or docile subjects. One possible consequence of decisions is the reactions that can be provoked among constituents. It’s not necessarily an unhealthy thing for office holders to be at least as worried about provoking ordinary people as they might be about powerful and wealthy business interests.
Respectability Politics at Its Worst: A Response to a Tone Deaf, Racist and just Plain Wrong Editorial on the East Phillips Roof Depot Fight
We typically don’t write editorials but Shannon Watson’s community voices March 16th piece titled “Strong voices, not loud actions are most effective in moving policy makers” demands a response.
In a city that had some of the worst riots in modern American history which spurred a global movement that included policy changes to policing internationally and domestically, it’s hard to understand how anyone could believe the title of the editorial. Shannon seems to go out of her way to ignore history, the state of this sham democracy, and the ongoing treatment of the poor, working class, POC and Indigenous here in Minneapolis.
Shannon takes on a condescending parental tone, (as those in non profits often do) when addressing activists struggling with the environmental racism forced on them by the city. She talks about the harassment council members and mayor Frey have allegedly faced, how it’s “unacceptable” and then alleges that having good relationships with policy makers is more ethical and effective than yelling at them. This of course completely ignores the violence the city has used on its own residents.
While never directly naming it, Shannon clearly is referring to the increasingly heated city council meetings that have taken place around the roof depot fight in East Philips. Instead of recognizing the traumatic history that led to these heated meetings, Shannon’s perspective parachutes into recent weeks and focuses blame squarely on “activists”. In truth, the East Phillips neighborhood is well known throughout the city as being a sacrifice zone. Situated between numerous highways, main throughways and a metal works facility, this neighborhood is already one of the most polluted in the state of Minnesota. Home to Little Earth, the largest native urban population in the country, East Phillips is one of the most diverse communities in the state. It’s also one of the most impoverished. This isn’t a coincidence. It’s the intentional result of policy makers like the ones Shannon defends in her article. The Roof Depot struggle is just another chapter in a long history of violent, state sponsored racism.
Shannon speaks of building relationships on trust. She even goes so far as to say “Relationships are why one constituent with a personal story will always be more persuasive than a flood of form letters.” I don’t know where Shannon has been the last ten years (or 300 years for that matter) but it clearly wasn’t Minneapolis city council meetings. She must not have seen the hundreds of heartfelt appeals to elected officials over the years. One of these appeals came from native mother distraught over the loss of her 16 year old son to a heart condition that was almost certainly caused by pollution, on her knees begging council members not to pass yet another environmentally destructive project in her neighborhood. Shannon must not know that the East Philips community raised more than 5 million dollars more than half a decade ago to buy the property themselves in order to turn it into a beautiful green space of healing, only to have the city outbid them and threaten the owners of the property with eminent domain if they sold it to the community.
Perhaps most importantly, Shannon must be completely unaware that while rightfully angry residents may hurl threats at policy makers, the city routinely uses actual violence via the MPD to enforce their will on the community. The state’s influence and power are predicated on its ability to utilize violence. Anyone who struggled for justice against the city and the police from Jamar Clark to Philando Castile, to George Floyd, Dollal Idd, Winston Smith any many more, only to be shot by rubber bullets know this to be true. They do not need to hear the same empty platitudes from policy makers and “concerned citizens” like Shannon.
Another example of violence is the merciless war Frey and the city are waging on the homeless. No place is safe to sleep without the threat of sweeps that will throw out everything they own and cast them out into the cold so the wealthy don’t have to look at them. If you think threats are bad, have you ever shivered so violently that you were afraid to fall asleep for fear that you may not wake up? That’s violence. Having to start your life entirely over everytime a pearl clutcher sees your tent, is violence. Police violence through killings, tearing down encampments, and the fight against community control of the roof depot are all interconnected.
Frey and the council have clearly demonstrated time and again that working within the system will get you nowhere and the roof depot struggle is a sterling example of that. The roof depot has become near national news in recent weeks with pressure mounting on city officials to cancel the project. When people occupied the roof depot the city responded with violence via the use of the police and it backfired by showing the commitment and the resolve of the community. Does Shannon really believe that happened because East Phillips played by the rules? Breaking the law through civil disobedience and birddogging politicians were necessary escalations.
One would hope that the pearl clutchers on the city council come to their senses. It is doubtful however that their attacks on free speech will be stopped willingly. Their goal is to stifle dissent so they can serve the rich and steamroll our communities without resistance. As is typical of those in power, they do not want to be held accountable for the harm their actions cause the people. No amount of “relationship building” will change this reality.
While it is easy for people like Shannon to condemn yelling at elected officials, we won’t. We refuse to condemn a community defending itself and we won’t have the audacity to tell them to play by the rules when it has historically never worked for them. We unequivocally condemn Mayor Frey and the city council majority for their horrific “leadership” and the ACTUAL outright violence they regularly impose on the community. How the residents choose to fight back after this point will be self defense and we support them in the struggle against the oligarchs that run this city.