Posner & Becker on Iraq War Protests
Depending on your point of view, thirty-two years ago today was the Fall of Saigon or the Liberation of Saigon. Yesterday, I believe coincidentally, Richard Posner and Gary Becker posted about why there have not been more violent protests in the US to attempt to end the Iraq war. It is a subject that I’ve been pondering for a while too.
Becker’s argument is that the absence of a draft is the decisive factor in the level of violent protest against the Iraq war compared to the war in Southeast Asia. The lower number of causalities also lowers the impact of the war. Posner does not dismiss conscription as a factor, but points to five other factors he believes are equally or more important. To summarize, they are:
1. The opponents of the war in Iraq have the support of one of the two political parties.2. The opportunity costs of time are higher today than they were in the 1960s and early 1970s for potential protesters (i.e. higher wages, a higher percentage of employed females, more competitive colleges, higher long-term cost of short-term protests).
3. The great expansion of the electronic media, including the advent of blogs, gives people outlets to blow off steam that are much cheaper, in cost of time, than street demonstrations or acts of violence.
4. Lessons learned. The violent protests against the Vietnam war probably did not shorten the war, but instead helped Nixon become President.
5. For Vietnam war protesters, the war was a symbol of deeper and broader problems with the United States and the entire Western world. Today most of those with anti-war views blame the Iraq war on the incompetence of the Bush Administration.
I find it interesting that the Old Masters limit the discussion to violent protest in response to war. Is the implication that violent protest is more effective than non-violent protest? I think Becker is correct if we consider only violent protest. If the government wanted to draft me or my children for such a misguided cause, I may be provoked to more drastic actions than posting Jon Stewart’s armchair analysis on a blog. Posner’s first four points are valid, my impression is that the fifth is probably not valid for today’s potentially violent protesters.
Posner seems correct regarding the idea of a variety of factors that diminish the overall potential for protest. If aggressive police responses to (or provocation of) violent protests have increased, the costs of protesting in general, and protesting violently in particular, have also increased. Higher costs, even without diminished chance of successful protest, would be a disincentive for protest. Certainly, there is little hope for successful outcomes to protests today.
I wonder if the relative success of the non-violent civil rights era protests has impacted the willingness of subsequent generations to engage in violent protests. For those protesting the Vietnam war, Martin Luther King was a contemporary. For the next generation, he is a saint. Hopefully in 30 years we’ll be able to look back and see that non-violence was also the right tactic today.
foreign affairs &politics posted by: dan @ 30 Apr 2007 23:18