Conflicted about the Conflict: Protests II

Two more observations about the opposition to the anti-war protests…

• A recurring comment from the conservative side of things is “If you don’t like the decisions made by your elected representatives, then vote them out of office.”  Stepping gingerly over the mushy cow patty of the last presidential election (since I’ve already addressed it), we should be sure to include the unspoken part of that retort: “Which won’t be for another two years.”  The idea that those who are opposed to the war (or indeed to any policies of the current administration) should have no mechanism for expressing their displeasure other than electioneering is offensive.
• Nearly as offensive, some conservative talk jocks have been using the “vote them out next time” idea in combination with low voter turnouts at the mid-term election to insinuate that the protestors didn’t (bother to) vote in the elections which put Bush and the Republican-controlled congress in power, and thus that their complaints are invalid, en masse.  Alas, there is a grain of truth to that, since it is largely the younger crowd doing (and able to do, for various reasons) the protests, and that age group typically does have lower voter turnout levels.  Of course, large numbers of the protestors did vote, but it doesn’t behoove the talk jocks to recognize that.
• Another comment I’ve encountered a couple times is one paraphrased as “The protestors should think long and hard about just who their protest helps.”  When I heard this on the radio, the speaker almost immediately back-pedaled away from the idea that the protestors should not (be allowed to) protest.  But think about implications of that comment, about the chain of thought the person is trying to lead us down:
  

  Anti-war protests hurt American soldier morale
  …which lessens the effectiveness of our troops
  …which gives aid and comfort to the enemy
  …which means that anti-war protests are treason.

  Despite the date this entry was originally posted, this is no April Fool.  Treason is exactly the conclusion which such a comment is intended to imply.

---

Updated on April 7, 2003

Updated on July 20, 2010

Formatting changes for better readability.