This started out as a comment, responding to an individual who expressed a sentiment that is common of late: that the protests are ultimately ineffective, because they are a leaderless group making inconsistent demands of nobody in particular, toward an indiscernable end. That they are a statement, and not a solution. That they may just as easily devolve into senseless looting and violence, communism or anarchy.
This view, I feel, is somewhat unfair.
(Continue to follow "the Rant That Accomplishes Nothing" below)
Unfair in the same sense that it would be unfair to criticize a symptom for not being, in and of itself, an actual disease; or, more accurately, for not being a cure.
As an end unto itself, they are near useless. As a means to an end, they are imperfect. Yet what little they are capable of is not diminished by what they are incapable of.
Does anyone believe that a protest can set the world to rights overnight? No. Does anyone believe that any "elites" will have a sudden urge toward philanthropy and social justice? No. Does anyone believe that our government will miraculously become less corrupt and impotent? Certainly not.
If they wanted to force a "redistribution of wealth" they'd be breaking windows and looting, shaking down banks and burning corporate offices. If they wanted communism or anarchy they'd be swarming over police and lynching congressmen. The protesters, and those who support them, would seem to be not quite so short-sighted and infantile as many would fear.
Leaderless? Sure. Leaders can be targeted. They can be subverted, discredited and destroyed. And those who would pin their hopes and their morale on them would fall with them. And if successful, that's just another third-party sideshow on the evening news, with "talking points" rather than demands.
Demands of whom? Granted, it might be easier to find a single target toward which to direct the collective ire, such as Obama, in the Tea Party's case, or with a Middle East dictator you can force to resign. There is no quick fix here, I fear. Too much like treating the symptom, rather than the cause. But if I were a smart-ass (and I am), I'd say, when a matter of conscience and justice has been raised, look to see who flinches.
To what end? Good question. We all want to see the world change for the better, but we all have a different idea of how the end result should look. My view of the recent protests (and others may disagree) is that they do not so much put forth a singular view for a new world, but rather seek to bring more people into the eternal discussion about how it might be changed for the better, seeing that the current state is lacking.
And of those who harangue, there are those who:
1) are happy with the status quo and fear what recent populism forbodes;
2) insist that the protesters are "doing it wrong";
3) and those who are annoyed by the "rocking of the boat," and would maintain the sense of despair and the pessimistic bubbles of those who cannot bring themselves to hope for better, for fear of being robbed of hope.
I would not be so quick to criticize the protesters for not having a platform, or a legislative agenda, or a candidate. I don't think they're planning to run for office.
(Feeling peevish. Apologies to any professional haranguers whom I may have inadvertantly (or advertantly) offended. I realize this diary contributes virtually nothing and accomplishes little more than alleviating my headache, but I promise next time I'll spruce it up with fun video links.)