Over the last few years it seems (to me at least) that there has been a decline in the amount of people actively voicing their opinions in gatherings such as protests and other things of that nature (in the United States). By this I mean that it seems to me that there was more activism between the sixties and eighties. There have been poor turnouts (Rally Article) to rallies like the protest for the setting of the Assult Weapon Ban, which went from about 750,00 supporters in 2000 to just over 100 in 2004. Only two issues consistently have a large support base and that is the pro-choice/pro-life rallies and the gay-marriage rallies. Besides these two:

1. Has there been a decline in the amount of legitimate activism in the Unites States?

2. A. If you believe there has been a decline is it due to issues being resolved, laziness, lack of education about subjects, ect.?

B. If you believe there has been no decline, then please state why (please back up with links if possible).

I have got to get in on this one -- but I have to go somewhere in a few minutes.

I do not think there has been a decline, but with GWB in the whitehouse, there has been a massive increase in the issues that activists take on effectively spreading us thinner.

I will post a more thourogh explanation and links and what not either later tonight or tomorrow.

I believe that there is a lot of activism going on. A lot of it is being done on very pressing issues, which may mean some longstanding issues aren't getting a lot of attention.

Some examples:

a) the largest peace movement in history -- with huge turnouts of millions of people across the globe

example links:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/15/...rope/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/15/sprj.irq.protests.main/

b )) protests on the PATRIOT Act

example link:

http://www.ucffuture.com/news/2003/11/17/N...ks-559140.shtml

c) globalization is still a big one


There are more issues, of course, but the 3 I listed are/were very big and very imminent.

Here in Utah there are literally activities, rallies, panel discussions, educational events, actions, civil disobedience etc. nearly every day of the week.

I have a lot of friends involved in activism. Pre- 9/11 they may have concentrated on one or two issues, but are now doing work on a lot of issues. Some of the most active activists I know occasionally skip events so they can re-charge -- people are getting spread pretty thin. I think it may be a side benefit of the GWB administration that their policies are keeping all us active people so busy they some things slip by us.

1. Has there been a decline in the amount of legitimate activism in the Unites States?

No, I don't believe so. If anything it has increased. It may appear to have been reduced because the days of huge protests are gone, most of the stuff is more transparent now (see below).

B. If you believe there has been no decline, then please state why (please back up with links if possible).

The reason there appears to be a decline is twofold:
1) There are so many issues to deal with now, people are being spread thin.
2) Activism doesn't take its traditional form as much anymore. Instead of protests, marches and lockins we now have email campaigns, TV/radio, blogs, letter writing campaigns, etc.

It seems to me that most activism (for either the conservative or liberal bases) has moved online or to traditional media sources.

Just take a look at the tactics of organizations like MoveOn, the ACLU and Greenpeace. All of these organizations have primarily turned to internet methods for organizing their base and taking action.

The form of that action often comes in email campaigns to spread the word, organized efforts to write congressmen/women and senators on important issues and occiasionally legislative action and formal meetings.

This represents huge change in the ways you could reach people, it is cost effective and sometimes does a better job of getting the message across.

The conservatives have generally followed the track of using traditional media outlets to express their views and brand of activism. You can find this with shows like Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes, Savage, take your pick.

Granted you don't typically think of conservatives as being activists, but these guys have shown that it is possible.

Even discussion boards like AD are a form of activism in my opinion. This concept is also something that would be completely foreign to the activists of earlier decades.

People are generally far more politically informed now than they were several decades ago, even if they don't explictly realize they are.

1.)I'm not certan what you would categorize as "legitimate" I presume here that you are speaking of protests that get results. I believe this is more of a perception, something that is a product out of nostalgia than anything else.

2.)It could be that people are just not persuaded that protests are a way to get fast, or efficient results. I know people who have blank placards and posts in their car ready at a moment's notice for a protest. Older folks tend to be at them more(I'm a member of several anti-war groups in my region) while the younger ones are more into volunteer service oriented stuff and running for office. I can totally see how it is somewhat of an antiquated tactic. If you are against the war, you are better off running yourself or supporting someone who is voicing your issue. If you lose, then you had quite a megaphone to get your views heard. If you win, all the merrier. Go to a protest? You freeze your butt off and haven't accomplished a darn thing.

I'm not certain what evidence I could post other than personal experience. Aging quakers, mennonites, and radical ministers. I was the only person at more than a few protests under the age of social security entitlement.

Not at all. But, based on what Mike has written about the extraordinary steps taken by the Savannah city government in cooperation with the Feds for the G-8 meeting on Sea Island (q.v.), the environment conducive to holding protests is diminishing.

Try protesting at a Bush rally anywhere in the United States. You won't be allowed into the rally, I guarantee. You might be allowed in a "free speech zone" where your protest will be given little to no media coverage. This is not the fault of the activists, and it serves as potent evidence that liberals do not control the media, other ADers' opinions notwithstanding. Yep, separate but certainly not equal rallies or coverage.



Please see below.



Ibid. (or is it op. cit.?), see answer to first question.

Also, remember the March for Women's Lives? I watched it on C-SPAN. I saw a PACKED mall and listened to the speakers. And yet virtually every news source estimated the crowd at below one million. It was at least double the size, maybe triple the size of the so-called "Million Man March" held a few years ago in Washington.

Remember just after the terrorist attack on the train in Madrid? There were so many red signs that said "PAX" and huge crowds protesting just prior to the election. And yet CNN didn't even have the grace to translate it into "PEACE" for English-speaking audiences. It came out a little later that something like 70% of the Spanish people were against the war but their leader backed G.W. Bush and sent Spanish troops to Iraq anyway.

How much coverage did the Italian protestors get from the American news media when G.W. Bush went to Vatican City for a PR visit with the Pope?

There is no decline, and the issues have certainly not been resolved. You can take your pick from the environment, the war, corporatism, loss of rights under the Patriot Act, not enough jobs, inadequate health care, the trade deficit...You get the picture.

Laziness? Despair, maybe, for some people, because not seeing results or having your protests vilified, trivialized or ignored can bring on despair. People get tired of beating their heads against a brick wall (or a "stone" wall, pardon the pun).

There is apathy or tiredness on the part of some who are working their hardest just to keep their heads above water and pay for piano lessons for the kids.

Many people are not as well informed. This may be deliberate, as in "when I watch television I want to be entertained--there's too much bad news these days;" or misplaced trust as in, "my President would not get us into a war without evidence that there are weapons of mass destruction and an imminent threat to our country."