Our Actions Are More Powerful Than We Realize
David Swanson writes:
Almost every[history of past activism]includes belated discoveries of the extent to which government officials were influenced by activist groups even while pretending to ignore popular pressure.
These revelations can be found in the memoirs of the government officials as well,such as in George W.Bush's recollection of how seriously the Republican Senate Majority Leader was taking public pressure against the war on Iraq in 2006.
Of course,activism that appears ineffectual at the time can succeed in a great many ways,including by influencing others,even young children,who go on to become effective activists--or by influencing firm opponents who begin to change their minds and eventually switch sides.
The beautiful thing about nonviolent activism is that,while risking no harm,it has the potential to do good in ways small and large that ripple out from it in directions we cannot track or measure.
Wittner participated in his first political demonstration in 1961.The USSR was withdrawing from a moratorium on nuclear testing.A protest at the White House urged President Kennedy not to follow suit:
"Picking up what I considered a very clever sign('Kennedy,Don't Mimic the Russians!'),I joined the others(supplemented by a second busload of students from a Quaker college in the Midwest)circling around a couple of trees outside the White House.Mike and I--as new and zealous recruits--circled all day without taking a lunch or a dinner break.
"For decades I looked back on this venture as a trifle ridiculous.After all,we and other small bands of protesters couldn't have had any impact on U.S.policy,could we?Then in the mid-1990s,while doing research at the Kennedy Library on the history of the world nuclear disarmament movement,I stumbled onto an oral history interview with Adrian Fisher,deputy director of the U.S.Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.He was explaining why Kennedy delayed resuming atmospheric nuclear tests until April 1962.Kennedy personally wanted to resume such tests,Fisher recalled,'but he also recognized that there were a lot of people that were going to be deeply offended by the United States resuming atmospheric testing.We had people picketing the White House,and there was a lot of excitement about it--just because the Russians do it,why do we have to do it?'"
"几十年来，当我回首这次冒险时，觉得有点可笑。毕竟，我们和其他一小群抗议者不可能对美国的政策产生任何影响，不是吗？然后在20世纪90年代中期，当我在肯尼迪图书馆研究世界核裁军运动的历史时，偶然发现了对美国军备控制和裁军局副局长 Adrian Fisher 的口头历史采访。他正在解释为什么肯尼迪推迟恢复大气层核试验，直到1962年4月。费舍尔回忆说，肯尼迪个人希望恢复此类试验，但他也意识到，美国恢复大气层试验会让很多人深感不快。我们有人在白宫周围示威，人们对此非常兴奋——就因为俄罗斯人这么做，我们为什么要这么做?"
Yes,Kennedy delayed a horrible action.He didn't,at that time,block it permanently.But if the picketers in 1961 had had the slightest notion that Kennedy was being influenced by them,their numbers would have multiplied 10-fold,as would the delay have correspondingly lengthened.
Yes,our government was more responsive to public opinion in the 1960s than now,but part of the reason is that more people were active then.And another reason is that government officials are doing a better job now of hiding any responsiveness to public sentiment,which helps convince the public it has no impact,which reduces activism further.We also focus far too much on the most difficult individuals to move,such as presidents.
In 1973-1974,Wittner visited GI coffee houses in Japan including in Yokusaka,where the Midway aircraft carrier was in port.The Japanese were protesting the ship's carrying of nuclear weapons,which was illegal in Japan,and which the U.S.military,of course,lied about.But U.S.soldiers with whom Wittner and other activists had talked,brought them onto the ship and showed them the nukes.The following summer,when Wittner read in a newspaper that,
1973年至1974年间，Wittner 参观了日本的 GI 咖啡馆，包括中途岛航空母舰停靠的 Yokusaka。日本人抗议船上携带核武器，这在日本是非法的，当然，美国军方对此也撒了谎。但维特纳和其他活动人士与美国士兵交谈后，把他们带上了船，并向他们展示了核武器。第二年夏天，维特纳在一份报纸上读到:
"a substantial number of American GIs had refused to board the Midway for a mission to South Korea,then swept by popular protest against the U.S.-backed dictatorship,it occurred to me that I might have played some small role in inspiring their mutiny."
Soldiers can still be reached much more easily than presidents,more easily in many cases in fact than the average citizen.War lies are harder to sell to the people who have been fighting the wars.
In the late 1990s,Wittner was researching the anti-nuclear movement of decades past.He interviewed Robert"Bud"McFarlane,President Ronald Reagan's former national security advisor:
"Other administration officials had claimed that they had barely noticed the nuclear freeze movement.But when I asked McFarlane about it,he lit up and began outlining a massive administration campaign to counter and discredit the freeze--one that he had directed....A month later,I interviewed Edwin Meese,a top White House staffer and U.S.attorney general during the Reagan administration.When I asked him about the administration's response to the freeze campaign,he followed the usual line by saying that there was little official notice taken of it.In response,I recounted what McFarlane had revealed.A sheepish grin now spread across this former government official's face,and I knew that I had caught him.'If Bud says that,'he remarked tactfully,'it must be true.'"
When someone tells you to stop imagining that you're having an impact,ask them to please redirect their energy into getting 10 friends to join you in doing what needs to be done.If it has no impact,you'll have gone down trying.If it has an impact,nobody will tell you for many years.
Mr.Swanson is right.I noted in 2009:
As MSNBC news correspondent Jonathan Capehart tells Dylan Ratigan,the main problem is that people aren't making enough noise.Capehart says that the people not only have to"burn up the phone lines to Congress",but also to hit the streets and protest in D.C.
正如 MSNBC 新闻记者乔纳森·卡佩哈特告诉迪伦·拉蒂根的那样，主要的问题是人们没有制造足够的噪音。卡佩哈特说，人们不仅要"烧掉国会的电话线"，还要走上街头，在华盛顿特区进行抗议。
Even though most politicians are totally corrupt,if many millions of Americans poured into the streets of D.C.,a critical mass would be reached,and the politicians would start changing things in a hurry.
As[liberal]PhD economist Dean Baker points out:
The elites hate to acknowledge it,but when large numbers of ordinary people are moved to action,it changes the narrow political world where the elites call the shots.Inside accounts reveal the extent to which Johnson and Nixon's conduct of the Vietnam War was constrained by the huge anti-war movement.It was the civil rights movement,not compelling arguments,that convinced members of Congress to end legal racial discrimination.More recently,the townhall meetings,dominated by people opposed to health care reform,have been a serious roadblock for those pushing reform….
A big turnout…can make a real difference.
Baker is right about Vietnam.
Specifically–according to Daniel Ellsberg and many others–Richard Nixon actually planned on dropping a nuclear bomb on Vietnam.Nixon also said he didn't care what the American people thought.He said that—no matter what the public did or said—he was going to escalate the war in Vietnam.
However,a well-known biographer says that Nixon backed off when hundreds of thousands of people turned out in Washington,D.C.to protest an escalation of the war.
And Pulitzer prize winning reporter Chris Hedges pointed out recently:
I was in Leipzig on November 9,1989 with leaders of East German opposition and they told me that-perhaps within a year–there would be free passes back and forth across the Berlin wall.
Within a few hours,the Berlin Wall,at least as far as an impediment to human traffic,did not exist.
Week after week,month after month,these clergy in Leipzig held these candlelit vigils.And it was slow at first…people forget.Just like the Egyptian revolution has been percolating for many many months,and even years.
And suddenly,it began to grow.
And Honecker–who had been in ruling East Germany since the time of the dinosaurs–sent down a paratroop division to Leipzig...and they won't attack the demonstrators.
Part of the reason that our actions are more powerful than we think is that courage is contagious.So is the ability to think.
As we've previously noted:
[Studies show]that even one dissenting voice can give people permission to think for themselves.Specifically:
Solomon Asch,with experiments originally carried out in the 1950s and well-replicated since,highlighted a phenomenon now known as"conformity".In the classic experiment,a subject sees a puzzle like the one in the nearby diagram:Which of the lines A,B,and C is the same size as the line X?Take a moment to determine your own answer…The gotcha is that the subject is seated alongside a number of other people looking at the diagram–seemingly other subjects,actually confederates of the experimenter.The other"subjects"in the experiment,one after the other,say that line C seems to be the same size as X.The real subject is seated next-to-last.How many people,placed in this situation,would say"C"–giving an obviously incorrect answer that agrees with the unanimous answer of the other subjects?What do you think the percentage would be?
所罗门•阿希(Solomon Asch)强调了一种现在被称为"从众"的现象，他的实验最初是在20世纪50年代进行的，之后得到了广泛的重复。在经典的实验中，一个实验对象看到了一个类似于附近图表中的谜题:a、b 和 c 中哪一条线的大小与 x 线相同？花一点时间来决定你自己的答案......这个问题很明显，受试者坐在其他一些人旁边，看着图表——看起来是其他受试者，实际上是实验者的同伙。实验中的其他"实验对象"一个接一个地说，c 行似乎和 x 行大小相同。真正的主题是倒数第二个。在这种情况下，有多少人会说"c"——给出一个明显不正确的答案，而这个答案与其他科目的一致答案是一致的？你认为这个百分比会是多少？
Three-quarters of the subjects in Asch's experiment gave a"conforming"answer at least once.A third of the subjects conformed more than half the time.
在 Asch 的实验中，四分之三的受试者至少给出了一次"符合"的答案。三分之一的受试者在一半以上的时间内表现一致。
Get it so far?People tend to defer to what the herd thinks.
But here's the good news:
Adding a single dissenter–just one other person who gives the correct answer,or even an incorrect answer that's different from the group's incorrect answer–reduces conformity very sharply,down to 5-10%.
Why is this important?Well,it means that one person who publicly speaks the truth can sway a group of people away from group-think.
If a group of people is leaning towards believing the government's version of events,a single person who speaks the truth can help snap the group out of its trance.
There is an important point here regarding the web,as well.The above-cited article states that:
When subjects can respond in a way that will not be seen by the group,conformity also drops.What does that mean?Well,on the web,many people post anonymously.The anonymity gives people permission to"respond in a way that will not be seen by the group".But most Americans still don't get their news from the web,or only go to mainstream corporate news sites.
Away from the keyboard,we are not very anonymous.So that is where the conformity dynamic—and the need for courageous dissent—is vital.It is doubly important that we apply the same hard-hitting truthtelling we do on the Internet in our face-to-face interactions;because it is there that dissent is urgently needed.
Bottom line:Each person's voice has the power to snap entire groups out of their coma of irrational group-think.So go forth and be a light of rationality and truth among the sleeping masses.
And a recent study shows that when only 10% of a population have strongly-held beliefs,their belief will often be adopted by the majority of the society.
True,governments worldwide are cracking down on liberty with the iron fist of repression.
But some argue that this is actually a sign that we are winning.
As Truthout's Matt Renner writes:
正如 Truthout 的马特·雷纳所写:
Recently I sat down with two of the young adults who organized and led the Egyptian resistance movement that overthrew Hosni Mubarak.The media narrative said it took 18 days,when in fact,they had been organizing for over five years.
According to these young men,the moment they knew they had won was the day Mubarak's government shut off the Internet and blocked cellphone communications.When people could no longer get updates about what was happening in Tahrir Square,they had to come out of their homes and see for themselves,tripling the size of the protests in one fell swoop.
The global plutocracy is terrified of dissent.In some places,the war on dissent is being fought with bullets.In others,the war on dissent targets social media and mobile communications,while repressing and deceiving communities of struggle.It's already happening.
Indeed,the use of heavy-handed tactics–taking the velvet glove off of the iron fist–could backfire,as it will show the"emperor's ruthlessness"for all to see.
The powers-that-be are terrified of political awakening and dissent.For example,Zbigniew Brzezinski–National Security Adviser to President Carter,creator of America's strategy to lure Russia into Afghanistan,creator of America's plans for Eurasia in general,and Obama's former foreign affairs adviser-said:
For the first time in human history almost all of humanity is politically activated,politically conscious and politically interactive.There are only a few pockets of humanity left in the remotest corners of the world that are not politically alert and engaged with the political turmoil and stirrings that are so widespread today around the world.
America needs to face squarely a centrally important new global reality:that the world's population is experiencing a political awakening unprecedented in scope and intensity,with the result that the politics of populism are transforming the politics of power.
[T]he central challenge of our time is posed not by global terrorism,but rather by the intensifying turbulence caused by the phenomenon of global political awakening.That awakening is socially massive and politically radicalizing.
It is no overstatement to assert that now in the 21st century the population of much of the developing world is politically stirring and in many places seething with unrest.It is a population acutely conscious of social injustice to an unprecedented degree,and often resentful of its perceived lack of political dignity.
These energies transcend sovereign borders and pose a challenge both to existing states as well as to the existing global hierarchy,on top of which America still perches.
The misdiagnosis[of foreign policy]pertains to a relatively vague,excessively abstract,highly emotional,semi-theological definition of the chief menace that we face today in the world,and the consequent slighting of what I view as the unprecedented global challenge arising out of the unique phenomenon of a truly massive global political awakening of mankind.We live in an age in which mankind writ large is becoming politically conscious and politically activated to an unprecedented degree,and it is this condition which is producing a great deal of international turmoil.
That turmoil is the product of the political awakening,the fact that today vast masses of the world are not politically neutered,as they have been throughout history.They have political consciousness.
The other major change in international affairs is that for the first time,in all of human history,mankind has been politically awakened.That is a total new reality–total new reality.It has not been so for most of human history until the last one hundred years.And in the course of the last one hundred years,the whole world has become politically awakened.And no matter where you go,politics is a matter of social engagement,and most people know what is generally going on–generally going on–in the world,and are consciously aware of global inequities,inequalities,lack of respect,exploitation.Mankind is now politically awakened and stirring.
And a reader notes:
We do not understand our own power.Look around you.Almost everything you see was not only made,but created by people like yourselves.Most of the horrors existing on earth were engendered by the elites,WITH OUR CO-OPERATION.Without our consent,most of the terrifying situations existing in our world will cease to exist.Resist.It certainly may be difficult initially,but it grows easier moment by moment.
Some historical quotes may be helpful in illustrating the importance of struggling to make things better...
It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped.Each time a man stands up for an ideal,or acts to improve the lot of others,or strikes out against injustice,he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope,and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring,those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.
We must never despair;our situation has been compromising before;and it changed for the better;so I trust it will again.If difficulties arise;we must put forth new exertion and proportion our efforts to the exigencies of the times.
We must remember that one determined person can make a significant difference,and that a small group of determined people can change the course of history.
Never doubt that a small,group of thoughtful,committed citizens can change the world.Indeed,it is the only thing that ever has.
Hope has never trickled down.It has always sprung up.
At certain points in history,the energy level of people,the indignation level of people rises.And at that point it becomes possible for people to organize and to agitate and to educate one another,and to create an atmosphere in which the government must do something.
There is no act too small,no act too bold.The history of social change is the history of millions of actions,small and large,coming together at points in history and creating a power that governments cannot suppress.
Cynicism Is Not Realistic
Millions of Americans think that hope is for the foolish,and that the smart people are cynics.
But if all of the people who think of themselves as cynics or skeptics made noise,things would instantly change for the better.In other words,the millions of cynics/skeptics/self-described"realists"aren't raising a ruckus against the fraud being committed by the giant banks,the corruption of our political system,or the lawlessness and imperial arrogance of our intelligence-military-industrial complex because they think things can't change.
But by staying silent,they are actually creating the conditions in which nothing can change.As Edmund Burke points out:
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
If the millions of cynics woke up to the fact that they are a huge group–especially when combined with the people who are already actively working for the restoration of a liberty,justice and the rule of law–they would suddenly realize that collectively we can change things in a heart beat.
Don't Want to Go First?
Most people don't want to go first...
Most people want to see others succeeding before they give it a shot.
But the truth-as pointed out by Zbigniew Brzezinski above-is that people are waking up worldwide...and things are changing quickly.
A few short years ago,Americans wouldn't have believed that the White House would lie us into a major war,that our government would choose Wall Street over the little guy,or that the NSA spied on every American citizen.Now,this is all common knowledge.
A few years ago,most Americans trusted government and corporate leaders.Now,polls show that trust has collapsed,as people realize that our core institutions are rotten with corruption.
You will not be taking the first step.More people than you realize are already working to challenge the corrupt people in positions of power.
When you act to make things better,you're actually joining a large group of people doing the same thing.
And as Hellen Keller pointed out:
Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure.Life is either a daring adventure,or nothing.
Postscript:In any event,hiding our head in the sand doesn't work.