By Trevor Hobler, Staff Columnist
The United States of America, much like every other country in the world, is one with its fair share of problems. Many of these problems have been ameliorated by other countries, and therefore, are problems that America could solve if it were to take the appropriate action to do so. In this sense the underlying problem lies not within America’s capacity to effectively ameliorate problems, but rather with the institutionalized methods of policy-making. This inability to rally for a cause results in a large number of people in America feeling that they have little to no influence in the political process, a sentiment antithetical to the ideals of democracy.
This feeling of malaise has not gone unnoticed by a largely disappointed voting bloc, and with the government-promoted method of enacting change giving people nothing to work with, they must turn to protest. Videos of protests litter social media. Recall the previous summer that has been filled with high-profile labor union strikes nationwide. The incredible success of these labor unions, such as the case of SAG-AFTRA in reaching a tentative agreement and United Auto Workers acquiring the vocal support of President Biden. However, despite the widespread support for these movements, there are still vocal dissenters who take issue with the obstructive nature of such action. The use of collective action and disruptive protest is far from non-confrontational and that is exactly the point. The effectiveness of these protests is inextricably tied to how well they are able to grind things to a halt. With labor unions, the theory is obvious—if nobody works, then the owners who reap all the reward from their labor are left with no profit. Strikes can level the playing field and allow for fair negotiation. For movements that are not as directly tied to obstruction as labor unions are, it can be confusing as to why such obstructive behavior is still used so often. However, labor strikes are this frequent today because workers are desperate for better. The more desperate people are, the more likely they are to resort to obstructive behavior as a final attempt to have their concerns voiced.
Despite the hardship and difficulty protestors often entail, there is a strange negligence of the sacrifice being made. Virtually every protest in the United States has a rather significant militant presence: riot police with armor, shields, bludgeons, and tear gas. These protestors, in the face of this force, have essentially no agency over how the police will react to their presence. Many protestors end up injured, arrested or both through the actions of this force. In a lot of these cases, there will be no real culpability for this abuse. Despite knowing that things can or likely will go awry, protestors show up in order to make a statement and try to improve their community. They do so almost always using entirely peaceful means despite the violent response they so often receive.
At the end of the day the people who have the ability and power to make changes to how our society operates are not going to put themselves in a situation where they are easy targets for disgruntled groups. The owners have set themselves up so that their incomes are directly tied to the labor of the masses, and so the only way to hit them financially is if workers stop working. However, ceasing labor is not practical for the working class because in doing so, the workers would lose their own income and thus their means to survive. This means that any attempt to hit the elite where it actually hurts is also going to catch the majority of affiliated workers in the crossfire. This example of striking is fairly self explanatory, but the same principle applies to actions performed by other activists. If a march goes through a crucial road in a city, everyday people may be inconvenienced—others may be late to work and there may be unforeseen consequences. It is important to remember still that these consequences are the reaction of the owning class in an attempt to misdirect the anger away from themselves and towards those that are suffering from the same conditions. An employer may claim that a march through the street is no excuse to be late to work in an effort to make you upset at the marchers and not the employer who strings you along for your livelihood. The issues being protested are typically not ones unrelated to you either, and with the average citizen’s opinion having a “statistically insignificant, near zero” impact on the policy making process, any problem left off the agenda is done so at the behest of those with capital. The remaining problems are ones created and proliferated by a class of people that expect everyone to abide by the rules they themselves get to make.
The people in the streets demanding change are not the ones causing your problems, they are just the ones attempting to heal the wounds carved out by an apathetic subsection of the population. A large number of people unnecessarily criticize these activists, accusing them of causing a disturbance where there need not be one. This is not to say that it isn’t annoying, as there are inherent irritations associated with obstruction, but there is no other way to negotiate with people who could’ve been making changes for the better the whole time. Everyone who actually works for a living is used as a shield for those who leech off their labor; directing your fury towards the ones promoting an improvement to the status quo is exactly what the owning class wants. The owners want workers to be complacent and unorganized, angry at each other; don’t do the heavy lifting for them.
