Who's the audience?
I've asked many veterans of the '60s antiwar movement, "How did you stop that war?" One common answer goes like this. "The Powers That Be carefully count heads at mass rallies and demonstrations. Their rule of thumb is that for every participant there are ten more who share the crowd's views. Turnout at mass events is thus the critical measure of popular pressure on government decision-making. We stopped the war by mobilizing millions in increasingly massive popular demonstrations."
To me this explanation seems naive. I do not believe, for instance, that Nixon was willing to bow to the pressure of mass mobilization. There could have been a permanent encampment of twenty million laying siege to the White House, and he would have made a point of ignoring them.
Yet, without intending to be paradoxical, I do agree that the mass demonstrations did lead to the end of the war.
The question to ask is, "Who do demonstrations speak to?" I believe the answer is not, "The Powers That Be," but rather, "the tens of thousands of working-class draftees who filled the armed forces."
America's war in Vietnam ended because the Army went on strike. More and more units refused to fight. This is the mass movement which ended the war.
The mass movement at home made this one possible. It opened a political space in which draftees were empowered to make individual personal decisions in response to their draft notices. This is very different than earlier wars. When drafted to the Korean war, one served; when drafted to World War Two, one served. When drafted to Vietnam, one had a choice to make: to serve, to refuse to serve, or to resist within one's service.
Mass rallies are intended to communicate something to someone. Who are we talking to when we demonstrate? How do we frame our messages? How can we measure whether our messages have been heard and understood? These are the questions antiwar organizers face as World War Four becomes permanent.
