02-03-2017, 04:06 PM
(02-03-2017, 03:32 PM)Mikebert Wrote:(02-01-2017, 10:25 PM)Emman85 Wrote: There has been a rising sense of general civil unrest and political discontent for the past 5-6 years and these various movements are part of that, the women's march that just happened was possibly the largest protest the US has ever seen. Just last week millions of people were marching in the streets literally, what's you're definition of big?
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2...es-experts
The Iraq War protests led to nothing and so were small in effect. Occupy Wall Street got lots of publicity and was small in effect. The Tea Party was small in numbers but achieved large effects. The first two were small, even though they were either numerically large or got plenty of media attention. The last was large, even though the actual protests and coverage were less than or equal to the other two.
Quote:..you are right that we have yet to approach the violent severity of 1967...Precisely, which is why they will remain "small" in my estimation, pending some demonstration of effectiveness.
The difference was that the Tea Party recognized their ability to organize and win elections. Occupy was full of folks who poopoo-ed elections and really thought they could bring change by occupying the streets. The anti-Iraq War movement was somewhat better; they were out-organized in 2004 against an incumbent illegitimate war-making president, but they eventually turned the congress blue for a little while, until the Tea Party came along.