From Protest to Politics

Two weeks ago tens of thousands of people, most of them college students, demonstrated in 100 cities against America's participation in the Vietnam war. This week we have been told of plans for another march, to be held in Washington November 27. SANE, which is organizing the march, hopes it will be the largest of its kind ever held.

On October 21 the CRIMSON argued that the reactions of America's leaders to the anti-war protest have been wrong and irresponsible. There are, however, legitimate criticisms of the protests which must be considered.

If, as the protestors maintain, the demonstrations are meant to be more than an outlet for individual indignation, they are falling. Instead of mobilizing popular support-against U.S. policy and causing it to change, they are only stimulating a McCarthy-like witch hunt and alienating the vast majority of the American people.

The protester's practical alternatives and reasonable questions haven't been listened to. Instead, the demonstrations have been identified with draft-dodging, draft card burning, and "the communist menace."

The marchers have not communicated the reasons for their dissent to the nation. They have simply confronted an unsympathetic public, enmasse, with the fact of their opposition.

Their other forms of protest haven't effectively communicated their position either. Full page advertisements in the New York Times do little to convince the readers of the Daily News and Boston Globe, who have been fed a steady diet of unsympathetic news reports of the marches. "Teachins" reach few outside the university community.

Many of the protest leaders realize that the impact of their demonstrations has been weakened by the unfortunate image which they have acquired. The organizers of the November 27 march, for example, are trying to avoid incidents which would be sensationalized.

The only way the protesters can change American policy is to concentrate their efforts on a "teach-out" directed at the American people. They must become tactically-oriented politicians--not manipulators of power, for they have very little, but sensors and manipulators of public opinion.

To be most effective this "teach-out" should be non-ideological, dedicated more to informing than persuading. At Harvard it might be run by a board coalition of pro and anti-Administration groups, to include, for example, the Young Democrats and SDS, the United Ministry and the Americans for a Reappraisal of Far Eastern Policy. Specifically the Harvard coalition might consider:

* Forming a speakers' bureau and asking every possible group in the Boston Area--women's clubs, service organizations, schools, and churches, for example--if they would like to hear a discussion of the Vietnam question by one person or several with different opinions.

* Conducting seminars or debates by junior and senor faculty member specifically for editors and reporters on the Boston newspapers

* Arranging with Boston papers for the publication of explanatory articles by experts on Southeast Asia.

* Arranging for regular appearances on radio "talk shows" of people with conflicting viewpoints.

* Conducting symposia like the one ARFEP is now considering, less frantic than the marathon "teach-in" and aimed at producing practiced policy appraissals and proposals.

It seems almost impossible that such a coalition could be formed nationally, but for smaller groups the difficulties of organization and cooperation are by no means insurmountable.