I haven't written on dKos in ages. I've posted a comment here or there - but frankly I just hid in the background, watching many of the meta wars. It's been fun. But I come here tonight (at a bad time of night to launch an idea that I feel hopeful about). I come, because I finally figured something out.
I hate the so-called filibusters (which almost never arrive) and the boycotts of 2000s and 2010s. As a former student of movements, I know some things work well, others don't. For instance, the thing I wrote below fails to acknowledge every piece of the puzzle - but one of them is how we need, we MUST use some community institution to help us here - and I believe liberal religious traditions are the ones. We cannot have a winning boycott without institutional support. So here are some thoughts - I'd love to hear more of yours - and frankly, if there's a way to share this a couple of days in a row (or get it bumped to the top - yikes, never had that happen) - I'd be amazed. Let's get going...
So here are some of my initial thoughts to bring you up to speed on my thinking and then we can go from there:
As an academic studier of the "Civil Rights Movements" of the 50s/60s, the Women's Rights Movement and the Gay Liberation/Gay and Lesbian Rights Movements more recently, I have read and pondered on how to affect change in this world. Boycotts are effective in stopping something in roughly the same way (and used with the same frequency, I might add) that United States Senators use the filibuster to stop a piece of legislation from receiving a vote.
That is, one can say that a boycott (or filibuster) should exist and if things don't change, one will exist. And often, the media around the proposed boycott/filibuster usually gets the players into the room so that the whole thing can be avoided.
In the 1950s and 60s, where boycotts were used so well (think back to Montgomery and the bus system), the buses were key - key to Montgomery as a city, key to Black Montgomery citizens as a mode of transportation and key to White Montgomery citizens less as a type of transportation but more as infrastructure - it was there, in place, so that their purchased goods and services could easily get from where they were to the homes of the people who bought the items or their services.
On that note, an incredibly strong commitment, built over months - the winter months, the holiday season no less - that commitment demonstrated that this was not a problem which might go away easily. Had the Montgomery Bus system not need the money of the Black Montgomery riders, the boycott wouldn't have mattered. For once in US history, there was a moment where citizens, people held equal power to corporations. Now, some in the political world would argue that they are in fact equal, assuming that corporations should have a say in matters in the same way that citizens do.
In 2012, there are few situations where people need to fight for equality regarding a much needed service. Government assistance programs are often rude to its guests, but rarely are they discriminatory (though I have not seen what has happened if two men went in to apply for a welfare check).
So already, the power of the boycott is lessened because Americans rely less on groups and group systems and instead, they privilege their individuality. There are several articles, particularly from Psychology magazines, that report studies underlining the fact that right now, our broad American culture is not as connected to particular brands as we once were. A flyer who has felt discrimination by an airline (say Delta) may rant and rave - but it's just as easy to sign up to be a customer on SouthWest, US Air, American, United, etc.
Further, our national attention span has been shortened (in part due to the individual lives we try to lead). News stories which should capture the collective conscience for days, disappears as soon as something equally compelling comes along (or if not equally compelling, the characters in the news story must be: pretty, white, blond girl; missing children; celebrity break-up/wedding/child; or, a new song comes out). In the aftermath of the Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami, there seemed to be little time to reflect on the grand tragedy - before we moved on.
It takes time and focus. It takes more time than we will think we need and a dedicated focus, unlike we have ever had.
And so I propose that we "pluck the feathers of hate" from Chick-Fil-A so that the organization will have to make a decision on its future, and how those feathers will regrow.
In specific, concrete terms - (A) I believe that we should learn more about the specific donations of Dan Cathy and any other senior-level executive that we think we need to include. We need to know (1) how much was donated, (2) when, (3) what the social landscape was at that time, and (4) what percentage did his donation represent in terms of Chick-Fil-A's wealth.
We need to know (B) who in the Chick-Fil-A company makes decisions on how to spend money on the religious and culturally significant funding projects.
And (C) we need to learn about Chick-Fil-A's profits and losses. For instance, (1) does the HQ make money from franchisees directly, (2) what's the financial system setup like - who can set payment amounts, etc, and (3) what are the major costs for Chick-Fil-A (Macro and Micro).
Knowing this information (at the beginning, at least), we can set the groundwork for an action. My hope, rather than a day of boycott (which doesn't work if people aren't going there anyway) or for a kiss-in (while fantastic fireworks and love everywhere - it accomplishes little beyond that night), my hope is that we can have an action that would put pressure on the more important people in the organization to stop funding (at least) the worst recipients of money (Family Research Council, Exodus International and possibly others). By learning more about who the groups give to (and their history of violence or intimidation) and by learning more about who the donors are and why they give, I think we could change the narrative from "Christian Businessman vs Angry Liberals/Gays" into "Hate-filled Ultra-Conservative vs Supporting the Safety of People (peace/no bullying/violence)".
For real, explicit transformation to occur, we need to find a direct target to engage. I would argue that seeing the donations to FRC and Exodus International drop to 0 would be successful, as this would hurt those organizations and their attempts to bully teens who are BGLT or Questioning or Straight Allies - potentially saving lives.
Think of the young men and women, the young trans folks we have lost (lost their self-esteem, their self-image, and occasionally their lives) due to the hate language of FRC, Exodus International and some of these other groups.
So what is it? A dollar out of every sandwich goes to FRC and out comes more lies and smears aimed at trying to kill the spirits (and sometimes the bodies) of another human being?
------
What would a protest look like if people were educated, in a friendly way, as they came upon Chick-Fil-A. Imagine, seeing positive signs and friendly helpers - but sharing information about where the money goes at Chick-Fil-A. And then tallying up what they would've spent when they left. Daily, weekly, if this was done in 3-5 larger Chick-Fil-A markets, this could make a good story about how the protests have stopped FRC from publishing another biased, wrong report saying that gay men are pedophiles or this education may have stopped Exodus International from driving one person to suicide.
Imagine if this could continue - in many cities (maybe not even all at the same time). Imagine the ability to treat the employees of Chick-Fil-A with respect and to treat the grounds of the business with respect, even remembering not to retort when people yell horrible things at you. Look up some of those old videos from the SCLC and SNCC trainings about Sit-Ins from the 1950s and 1960s. You don't go in raggedy clothes - you go in nice ones. You don't yell or curse - you say "Yes Sir, No Sir; Yes Ma'am, No Ma'am." Imagine the disparity of the images - one group peacefully wanting to educate, wanting to make this not about Chick-Fil-A who has good workers and does good in other ways - but wanting to make this about a very specific part of Chick-Fil-A's leadership who wants to see young men and women, who aspire to be great leaders and people of deep conviction, but people who may also be gay or lesbian or bisexual, or possibly transgender - the leadership of Chick-Fil-A seems to want those people to cease to exist. And in this country, we can disagree about issues - but there are no camps to change people's hands from right to left or eyes from brown to blue. There are no camps to turn 60 year old white golf players into something they're not - we respect people's choices, even when we disagree. But we are here to creatively disagree and to encourage Chick-Fil-A to continue to give to the world - but to give to programs that are uplifting, not hurtful.
Imagine the former Exodus International speakers at each of those Chick-Fil-As, or people (like me) who were bullied for years about sexuality. Imagine the power of their stories and then a picture of the smiling happy men who run CFA or FRC with a great big check between them.
I believe that if we want change; if we do, in fact, want to make a difference - we need to find imaginative and new ways to reach audiences as well as oppressors. The whole "I'm going to boycott you" thing doesn't work, especially if people don't line up and picket each day, rain or shine, good weather or bad, good tv shows on or not. A real change, not a superficial pat on the back, would require action, prayer, commitment, training, patience, humility and respect and I don't know who has it in them.
Do you?