A social movement is an attempt to change the hearts and minds of the population as a whole in the service of aiding the interests of one group within the population. The Civil Rights Movement was successful at doing so by taking the high moral ground. The clean cut young people who were marched off to jail or hosed by police were superior in their ideals and aspirations to the white policemen and sheriffs who were their tormentors. That changed the narrative about white-Black relations in the South from being the one that had for generations been used by those who supported segregation, which was that black people were an unruly lot given to low morals and drunkenness and liable to violate white womanhood and nowhere near ready to have voting rights or be otherwise integrated into white society. The new narrative was that it was the black protesters who were middle class and appealing to law rather than the kind of order that was established by Bull Connors. There were a number of devices that were used to carry out this purpose and those included a charismatic leader, a legislative agenda, a distinctive means of demonstrating their convictions (which was, in this case, both marches of a previously unprecedented scope and sit ins) and an ideology (which was, in this case, that black people were people and so not an inferior social caste). Let us apply this analysis to recent protests against gun violence that were set off by the Parkland, Florida shootings.
These nationwide marches are a social movement. They have a particular gimmick, which is to have high school students act as spokespeople. They style themselves as survivors, as if they were Holocaust survivors, and they prove themselves to be glib and presentable, even if not deeply versed in the issues. Their parents, who organized the movement, realized it was not necessary for the students to be more learned than they were because the press was going out of its way not to embarrass the teens by asking them hard questions. Those parents, moreover, were the ones who drew up the incorporation papers which got the movement status as a non-profit organization which could make contributions to political candidates, that being the real push of the movement, which is to get people to vote against congress people who support the National Rifle Association. The movement also has a clear legislative agenda. While some of the young people sounded grateful for whatever could be achieved by way of legislation, most were in favor of a ban on assault rifles. The NRA says it is impossible to figure out what is and what is not an assault rifle, though T. D. Dick, the large retailer which withdrew assault rifles from sale, did not seem to have a great deal of difficulty deciding which weapons to remove from its shelves. The movement website also avoided taking responsibility for housing students who went to one or another of the marches. The organizers were careful not to overextend themselves.
Most important, this movement is out to change the hearts and minds of people. It does not do so by changing the views of voters on guns but by hoping to make voters one issue voters in that they will become convinced to vote against an incumbent or some insurgent candidate on the sole grounds that they are in with the NRA, which is something that the NRA had long been advocating on their side, which is that avoiding gun control was itself a sufficient basis for opposing a candidate because the Second Amendment was so fundamental to American liberty. And so the marches may have all been on one day, but they are not likely to disappear in influence as did the various women’s marches that took place after Trump was inaugurated. These student marchers are in for the long haul, which means through November, and they are continuing their activities with rallies and meetings that should put them in place to be a force in the midterm elections.
The Parkland inspired marches and the other Parkland inspired activities give heart to those who, like myself, would like to see the Democrats take over Congress after the midterm elections. That is because there is a wide difference between what is expected to take place in an election and what actually occurs. After all, Hillary was nine points ahead of Trump nine days before the 2016 election. Also, generic polls about whether voters prefer Democrats to Republicans are not reliable. Voters decide on the basis of who is actually running in their district rather than on general opinions about the two parties. Also, polling is unreliable because it is never easy to sort out the people who are likely to vote from potential voters who express a preference but do not show up at the polling place. A pollster has to guess just right about turnout to correctly predict who will win the election.
Better evidence than polling data is supplied by the number of representatives who decide not to run for reelection because they fear they will lose by the droves to an opposing party, and that certainly seems the case at the moment, a record number of Republicans not seeking re-election, and that includes the Speaker of the House, who claims he is not running for personal rather than political reasons. But the best evidence has to do with the energy of the people on the two sides and the Parkland demonstrations indicate that the gun control sentiment is strong enough not only to turn out voters but also to turn out election day workers to ring doorbells and drive voters to the polls, every voter being king or queen for that day in that political parties provide services to see to it that their own supporters get to vote.
Some Democrats are very confident that they will win the midterms in a big way because the election will be a referendum on Donald Trump. Midterms do indeed tend to be judgments about the person who had been elected as President two years before and Trump’s popularity is in the low forties. I would suggest that that isn’t so bad given all his bad publicity and the fact that voters may have grown tired of his personality, finding it gross rather than refreshing when you have to live with it for a while. Also, President Trump can act more Presidential and just having him around for a while makes whatever he does seem presidential. People can get used to him. Also, the strike on Syria, which is what Obama might well have done under the same circumstances, adds to the stature of the incumbent President, which is always true of military initiatives, the nation rallying behind John Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs, and rallying behind George W. Bush, electing him to a second term even after he had lied to the American people about the reasons for going to war in Iraq. And Mueller may not have made his report about collusion by the time election time rolls around. And so
maybe it will not be Trump and whatever trouble he is in by that time that will bring down the party that has become so identified with him; it will be the voters who are reminded for now and up to election day that they are morally obligated to be one issue voters and so vote the NRA out of power.
These nationwide marches are a social movement. They have a particular gimmick, which is to have high school students act as spokespeople. They style themselves as survivors, as if they were Holocaust survivors, and they prove themselves to be glib and presentable, even if not deeply versed in the issues. Their parents, who organized the movement, realized it was not necessary for the students to be more learned than they were because the press was going out of its way not to embarrass the teens by asking them hard questions. Those parents, moreover, were the ones who drew up the incorporation papers which got the movement status as a non-profit organization which could make contributions to political candidates, that being the real push of the movement, which is to get people to vote against congress people who support the National Rifle Association. The movement also has a clear legislative agenda. While some of the young people sounded grateful for whatever could be achieved by way of legislation, most were in favor of a ban on assault rifles. The NRA says it is impossible to figure out what is and what is not an assault rifle, though T. D. Dick, the large retailer which withdrew assault rifles from sale, did not seem to have a great deal of difficulty deciding which weapons to remove from its shelves. The movement website also avoided taking responsibility for housing students who went to one or another of the marches. The organizers were careful not to overextend themselves.
Most important, this movement is out to change the hearts and minds of people. It does not do so by changing the views of voters on guns but by hoping to make voters one issue voters in that they will become convinced to vote against an incumbent or some insurgent candidate on the sole grounds that they are in with the NRA, which is something that the NRA had long been advocating on their side, which is that avoiding gun control was itself a sufficient basis for opposing a candidate because the Second Amendment was so fundamental to American liberty. And so the marches may have all been on one day, but they are not likely to disappear in influence as did the various women’s marches that took place after Trump was inaugurated. These student marchers are in for the long haul, which means through November, and they are continuing their activities with rallies and meetings that should put them in place to be a force in the midterm elections.
The Parkland inspired marches and the other Parkland inspired activities give heart to those who, like myself, would like to see the Democrats take over Congress after the midterm elections. That is because there is a wide difference between what is expected to take place in an election and what actually occurs. After all, Hillary was nine points ahead of Trump nine days before the 2016 election. Also, generic polls about whether voters prefer Democrats to Republicans are not reliable. Voters decide on the basis of who is actually running in their district rather than on general opinions about the two parties. Also, polling is unreliable because it is never easy to sort out the people who are likely to vote from potential voters who express a preference but do not show up at the polling place. A pollster has to guess just right about turnout to correctly predict who will win the election.
Better evidence than polling data is supplied by the number of representatives who decide not to run for reelection because they fear they will lose by the droves to an opposing party, and that certainly seems the case at the moment, a record number of Republicans not seeking re-election, and that includes the Speaker of the House, who claims he is not running for personal rather than political reasons. But the best evidence has to do with the energy of the people on the two sides and the Parkland demonstrations indicate that the gun control sentiment is strong enough not only to turn out voters but also to turn out election day workers to ring doorbells and drive voters to the polls, every voter being king or queen for that day in that political parties provide services to see to it that their own supporters get to vote.
Some Democrats are very confident that they will win the midterms in a big way because the election will be a referendum on Donald Trump. Midterms do indeed tend to be judgments about the person who had been elected as President two years before and Trump’s popularity is in the low forties. I would suggest that that isn’t so bad given all his bad publicity and the fact that voters may have grown tired of his personality, finding it gross rather than refreshing when you have to live with it for a while. Also, President Trump can act more Presidential and just having him around for a while makes whatever he does seem presidential. People can get used to him. Also, the strike on Syria, which is what Obama might well have done under the same circumstances, adds to the stature of the incumbent President, which is always true of military initiatives, the nation rallying behind John Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs, and rallying behind George W. Bush, electing him to a second term even after he had lied to the American people about the reasons for going to war in Iraq. And Mueller may not have made his report about collusion by the time election time rolls around. And so maybe it will not be Trump and whatever trouble he is in by that time that will bring down the party that has become so identified with him; it will be the voters who are reminded for now and up to election day that they are morally obligated to be one issue voters and so vote the NRA out of power.