DUMMERSTON — In response to Peter Alexander's Nov. 9 letter in the Brattleboro Reformer, “VY protesters went too far,” and to the statement of the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB), I'd like to share my views about a “diversity of tactics,” movement building, and empowering people to take action.
I'm outraged that Peter Alexander characterized young protesters as terrorizing the PSB and as those who “might as well be working for Entergy.”
I find it very dangerous to condemn young people for their creative and courageous actions. By scapegoating “bad protesters,” he is dividing the anti-nuke movement and setting us up for failure. I feel it reeks of elitism, excludes people, and is counter to building a critical mass and popular movement. Most unfortunately, it has a chilling effect upon people who may want to take action in the future.
I encourage people to express their opinions about tactics and strategies in the world of activism. Yet I think the strategy of condemning one tactic in favor of another, instead of embracing a diversity of tactics and uniting under one banner, narrows the playing field and ultimately suppresses energy for action and change. The controversy may be impossible to resolve, but there is no need for an antagonistic spirit.
As a movement, we need to do it all - lobby, speak out at public meetings, raise funds, write letters, promote safe and green energy, support the victims of radiation, march in the streets, occupy offices, disrupt business as usual, and pressure key decision-makers.
It is important to not view tactics as existing in a hierarchy of value. As individuals, I think we need to take action in whatever ways we feel we can make change, ways that have a direct impact on the people in power and make our demands heard.
I disagree with the premise that orderly protests are always the most effective. In times of great need, we need creativity. Often I hear, “Where are the young people? Where is the fun and spontaneity?” Young, fun, spontaneous energy can and will emerge if we stop suppressing it.
We cannot afford to do the same old actions and try the same old techniques all the time. I believe that once a tactic becomes a constant, it can be more easily neutralized, marginalized, and discredited. Variable actions, with levels of unpredictability, can be more disruptive to business as usual and create a new problem set that the authorities are unfamiliar with.
I'm also outraged to hear the statements from the PSB claiming that “this isn't what public discourse is suppose to be.”
This is an attempt by the perpetrator to define to the victim how we are supposed to respond to the injustice thrust upon us. Perhaps part of what protesters are trying to communicate to the power brokers is that the possibility of a nuclear winter scenario in New England is obscene, unacceptable, and frankly unhinges people. Performance theater aims to deliver its message through symbolism, metaphor, and imagery - a figurative collage of emotionally charged representations of the heart of the message that can leave lasting effects.
The debate around a “diversity of tactics” erupted in Seattle during the 1999 World Trade Organization protests due to the collapse of guidelines for action. The Seattle actions brought together a number of diverse groups where the nonviolent discipline could not be maintained. The Seattle actions opened a space for the premise of “respect for a diversity of tactics.” Simply stated, protesters with different styles can participate in the movement to make manifest necessary change.
Accepting a diversity of tactics provides for the broad diversity of real human beings. Advocating for a strictly nonviolent perspective can potentially marginalize and criminalize a whole segment of activists and deny the history of people's struggles in many parts of the world.
The call to respect a diversity of tactics allows for disagreements over tactics without falling into public condemnation or criminalization. Such condemnation was seen by many as divisive, contributing to the distinctions drawn in the corporate media between “good” and “bad” protesters.
The call for a diversity of tactics is a call for solidarity and opens up space to include a broad range of ideas and not become a myopic, dogmatic movement that tries to represent the whole in one homogenized way.
Critics often charge that the tactic they oppose will alienate participants. On the contrary, if a movement displays a wide array of tactics, a broad base of people can more easily identify which appeal to them. In reality, some people are alienated and disillusioned by lobbying, canvassing, and the nonviolent direct action (NVDA) and civil disobedience (CD) mantras.
For example, most people cannot tolerate nine months of planning meetings to pull off a civil disobedience action that may result in legal consequences for many years. Consider the model of the PSB action, where 30 people assembled, planned an action over a 24-hour period, executed the plan, and disrupted business as usual, all without legal consequences or being subjected to the violence of the police state.
Unfortunately, given the state of the world and the psychology of our culture, individuals need to work hard to find inspiration and they need to feel safe enough to express themselves. We need a variety of outlets for this inspiration. Failure to act is the ruin of the soul. If you believe you have a great idea, I say run with it! Never mind the naysayers!
I'd prefer more people doing more actions with the assumption that sometimes they will make mistakes or be subjected to criticism. We need more people feeling empowered to take more action. I'd rather have 10 people doing 10 different actions then trust one person to succeed with one grand, orderly scheme.
It is not the time to begin paring down and judging who is and who is not part of this movement. It is not realistic for everyone to conform to the rule book of any dogma or tactic. Insisting that everyone should adopt the same approach is arrogant and shortsighted, and it presumes that you are entitled to make judgment on others' behalf.
Unfortunately, nothing up to this point has worked successfully to shut down Vermont Yankee. We need to do everything in our power to do so, including taking risks, recruiting new people, and perhaps causing a big stink. We need action leading up to this vote on relicensing. We need action now!
Otherwise, we face another 20 years of a potential nuclear winter, guaranteed radiation leaks, and tons of nuclear waste. I do believe pranksters, direct-action folks, puppeteers, and other assorted riffraff and rabble are necessary elements of a winning campaign.