Markos of Daily Kos on the subject of antiwar protests:

“…my biggest problem with anti-war protests is that they’re obsolete. What do they accomplish? Historians still argue about the role Vietnam-era protests had on ending the war (shortened it versus prolonged it). But today, they mean nothing.”

So, what do they accomplish?

As David Greenberg, a teacher at Rutgers, wrote in Slate, March 2003:

“Protesting war isn’t some Vietnam-era relic, like love beads or Country Joe McDonald, but an American democratic tradition.”

Let’s look at that tradition.

Greenberg’s lengthy article, titled “Advise and Dissent: How anti-war protest movements have made the U.S. stronger” explores the roots of American antiwar protests and their effects on societal change:

In American history in particular, wartime dissent has a venerable lineage. Even during that most mythic of causes, the Revolution, fully one third of Americans opposed independence, in John Adams’ famous estimate, while an equal third favored it. Only in retrospect did the Revolution become an unambiguously glorious endeavor.

Dissenters spoke out against virtually every subsequent conflict. The humiliating defeats of the War of 1812 made that fight so unpopular that the states of New England considered seceding from the Union. A generation later, many Americans viewed the Mexican-American War (not unreasonably) as an act of naked U.S. aggression. In 1848, shortly after the war’s conclusion, Congress censured President James Polk for “unnecessarily and unconstitutionally” commencing hostilities. Supporting the rebuke was Illinois Rep. Abraham Lincoln, who attacked Polk as “a bewildered, confounded and miserably perplexed man.”

Popular support for the Spanish-American War waned as the relatively easy fight for a free (i.e., pro-American) Cuba gave way to a more controversial program of wresting away Spain’s other colonies, particularly the Philippines. When President William McKinley opted to annex the Philippines–he wanted, he said, “to educate the Filipinos and uplift and Christianize them”–a motley array of critics from Andrew Carnegie to Mark Twain objected. William Jennings Bryan used his dissenting stance as the centerpiece of his (losing) 1900 presidential campaign.

During World War I, critics excoriated Woodrow Wilson–who had run for re-election in 1916 on the slogan “He kept us out of war”–for entangling America in a bloody European conflict. Political leaders from Wisconsin Sen. Robert LaFollette to Socialist Party presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs spoke out. (“I had supposed until recently that it was the duty of senators … to vote and act according to their convictions,” LaFollette sardonically told the Senate. “Quite another doctrine has recently been promulgated by certain newspapers … and that is the doctrine of ‘standing back of the president’ without inquiring whether the president is right or wrong.”) The majority of Congress, however, passed a series of repressive laws that let the government imprison or deport thousands of critics of the president, including Debs. Vigilante groups ostracized, assaulted, and even lynched countless more.

And, on Vietnam:

Most important, peace activists have sometimes actually helped end or prevent wars. Wayne State University historian Melvin Small has shown that the Vietnam anti-war movement helped marshal a majority of Americans (and especially influential players in Congress, the press, and the intelligentsia) against the war. If it didn’t end the war as speedily as it had hoped, its activities did, indirectly, lead Johnson to forgo a second term and persuade Nixon to reduce American troop levels and to scrap plans to intensify the war.

One can debate the effects of any antiwar protest but to claim, as Markos does, that today’s protests “mean nothing” is to ignore the value of all protest movements worldwide, throughout history.

Have we arrived in an era where public demonstrations of opposition are worthless? Tell that to the people of the Ukraine who launched their Orange Revolution to protest electoral fraud in 2004. Tell it to the protesters in Tiananmen Square. Tell that to those who marched in the US Civil Rights Movement. Tell that to anyone who has gathered with like-minded individuals to stand for peace and human rights anywhere in the world.

How do you measure the success of a protest march? Is it measured by the need for instant gratification that so pervades western society today? Is it measured by a sudden and abrupt end to the Iraq war? Is it measured by President Bush resigning? Is it measured by how many media cameras are present? Is it measured by how much coverage the big cable networks give it? I say no.

Success is measured in many ways and the subtle measures are perhaps the most powerful. Did the protest cause even one person to change their mind? Did the protest inform and educate? Did the protest display the importance of free speech in a democracy and the protection of such a valuable right that is threatened daily by those in power? Did the protest give voice to the passion of those who otherwise would have no outlet? Did the protest strengthen the community and groups involved to pursue more efforts in the struggle for their cause? Did the protest inspire thought and reconsideration of entrenched beliefs? Did the protest speak for the dead and suffering? Did the protest spread the message of the dire need for compassion in this world?

That is how we must measure success. Anything less is meaningless. Today’s protests do mean something. There is absolutely no doubt about that and don’t let anyone tell you that when 2 or more people gather together to raise their voices they are involved in something fruitless or futile. Only a defeatist with no faith in the collective voice would believe that. The collective voice has proven them wrong – for centuries.