Do Angry Protests Help or Hurt the Democratic Process?

I think the problem with any question like this arises from the fact that so many people make an assumption of equivalency - i.e., if Group A protests policies of Group B, then Group B's protests are the equivalent of those.

This is a misguided but incredibly persuasive assumption fostered, I think, by media formatting - the media requires conflict, not consensus, to garner ratings/gather viewers to sell to advertisers. We really have reached the point where the format of the media so strongly influences our perceptions and the nature of our dialogue that the medium is now the message.

The biggest problem with this state of affairs is that the appearance of equivalence makes it far too easy to dismiss other viewpoints as simply originating from partisan biases - the argument has no merit, because it's partisan, etc.,. It also makes it possible for absolutely ridiculous arguments to be presented seriously simply because they can generate conflict over an issue that, if present in rational terms, can only be consensual:

Group A has an apparent consensus with the statement: It's dangerous to keep a rabid skunk in the same crib where your baby sleeps.
Group B composed of 2 individuals releases a statement via the internet that the refusal of people to keep a rabid skunk in their babies' cribs is an obvious attack on multi-racial children.

Group Bs position generates conflict, so the media picks it up and runs with it - despite the fact that it's absolutely ridiculous, it gets coverage and people from Group A feel like they have to speak out against it - voila, instant media conflict and a bump in ratings for that particular 15 minutes.


And once you get to that point, where no one can ever be correct if an opposing viewpoint is stated in the same arena, it becomes very easy for public forums to simply become shouting matches - displays of power instead of discussions of ideas.

Generally, I find it's the party with weaker rational explanations for their position who try the hardest to foment this sort of situation, or those who don't operate from a rational position and, instead, operate from the presupposition of the 'rightness' of their party leaders. These people can be extremely disruptive, and can effectively distract people from the main issue, even if they're in the minority - because along with their belief in their absolute correctness, they also suffer from the Cassandra-complex where they feel they're in some position where their hold on the truth is going ignored by a deluded mass of people.

It's a sad state of affairs, and we largely have the influence of the media to thank for this.

 

What's interesting about this piece from Fox is that they had the clips from Soylent Green ready to roll just as this guy started to talk about it. It's almost like they knew he would bring it up and knew the length of time he was going to talk about it. Of course, since the false idea of death panels killing off granny and babies are the only thing the Repubs have going, they might as well add some visuals to scare people even more. If the viewers trust what they hear on Fox and the anchors are talking about government death panels and showing video of Grammy being sent to the food processor, wouldn't that drive a few folks to violence?

<object width="320" height="260"><param name="movie" value="http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/mediaplayer316.swf"></param><param name="flashvars" value="config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg?flv=http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/video/2009/07/25/fnc-20090725-soylent.flv"></param><embed src="http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/mediaplayer316.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg?flv=http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/video/2009/07/25/fnc-20090725-soylent.flv" width="320" height="260"></embed></object>