HOME / politics: Who's winning, who's losing, and why.

You Lie!Among the protesters at the 9/12 march on Washington.

By Christopher BeamPosted Sunday, Sept. 13, 2009, at 6:14 AM ET

RSS

"Angry mob, coming through!" a protester shouted as he squeezed his way through the crowd at Freedom Plaza Saturday morning. The march from the plaza to the Capitol—the much-hyped "9/12" protest trumpeted for months by Glenn Beck and organized by the same coalition of conservative groups that backed last spring's tea parties—wasn't supposed to start until 11:30 a.m. But the plaza was so full that by 10 a.m., the police had closed Pennsylvania Avenue and the marchers were off.

9/12 Protesters in WashingtonA conservative protest is something of an oxymoron—partly because the biggest protests in recent memory (Vietnam, Iraq) involved liberal kids challenging conservative policies. But also because conventional wisdom says that conservatives don't go stirring the pot. After all, it's hard to agitate in favor of the status quo.

Then again, maybe it's easier when the Democrats control the White House and both chambers of Congress. In that case, the conceptual problem facing Saturday's protesters was different: Everyone was against the president, but no one could really agree why. Dave Johnson, who traveled from Woodstock, N.Y., for the protest, didn't necessarily think this was a bad thing. Gesturing toward the parade of signs, he noted that the message of the anti-war movement was simple: "Get out of Vietnam. This is cap-and-trade, taxes, czars, redistribution of wealth," he said. Saturday's protest, therefore, was "richer in terms of mental involvement."

That's one way of putting it. Another word for it is simply confused. Part of the reason is that many of the protesters were new to the whole mass-demonstration thing, and in some cases, it showed. While most of the chants fit accepted rhythmic structures—"Common sense! Common sense!"—some did not. "First Amendment! First Amendment!" one protester cheered. It took a couple of rounds to realize the phrase didn't quite scan. Others got the hang of it quickly. One marcher, spotting the words of the First Amendment carved into the side of the Newseum building on Pennsylvania Avenue, pointed and started chanting: "Read that sign! Read that sign!" Some chants were lifted directly from liberal rallies, namely "The people united will never be divided." At one point, I inquired about a "Power to the People" sign. Its owner, Dana Thomas of Reston, Va., explained to me that John Lennon was really a conservative. "Have you listened to the words to 'Taxman?' " (Actually, that was George's song, though John did write this one, which could be interpreted as opposing the public option.)

Just as Obama's inauguration was hailed as a historic moment, the tea partiers saw themselves in equally world-historical terms. "It's great to be part of history," said Nick Gingric of Freeberg, Pa. "I think this is the biggest crowd ever to march on Washington." Another man, marching nearby, agreed: "I think this is the greatest American outpouring I've seen in my life." The size of the crowd was a point of debate. An organizer at one point announced that ABC News estimated the crowd at 1.5 million. Yet the article on ABC News' Web site—as well as the New York Times and other news sources—said "tens of thousands."

Historical analogies abounded. One woman's T-shirt showed the Founding Fathers with the caption "Right-Wing Extremists." Hitler moustaches adorned Obama posters. The tea-party analogy, initially a cute metaphor for conservatives upset about the stimulus package and auto bailout, has become a battle cry. Protesters marched in white wigs tricornered hats. "Don't Tread on Me" flags were outnumbered only by the Stars and Stripes. During the rally in front of the Capitol, a video compared Obama's policies to those that incited the Revolutionary War. Now, according to the deep-voiced narrator, "Lady Liberty faces her greatest challenge."

Most of the themes of the protest were familiar. Demonstrators were upset by TARP, or the stimulus, or health care reform, or cap-and-trade. But some gripes were new. I was especially struck by the tea baggers' obsession with czars. Everyone knew the number of czars Obama appointed: 37. And nobody was happy with them. "They're socialist radicals," said Davy Reeves of Kalamazoo, Mich. "I don't like the idea of all these czars," said Geri Shea of Leesburg, Va. "It's unconstitutional."

Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, speaking at the rally, picked up on the theme. "It's people, not czars, that run this country!" Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, too, reminded the audience that "nowhere in our Constitution can you find the word czar." The rally's introductory video pointed out that Obama has appointed "more czars in his first six months than in 300 years of Czarist Russia." Conservative hip-hop artist Hi Caliber, who performed at the rally, managed in one song to rhyme czar with Bill Maher. One sign even delivered its anti-czar message in Cyrillic.

I asked a few protesters how Obama's czars are different from the unelected advisers every president appoints. "Every president does have advisers," said Kelly Grillo, Northfield, N.J. "But Obama has way too many."

Van Jones, who resigned recently over comments he made about Republicans as well as a petition he signed alleging government involvement in 9/11, was singled out for special derision. But so, too, was constitutional scholar and recently confirmed "regulatory czar" Cass Sunstein. The reason, said Davy Reeves of Kalamazoo: rats. "He thinks rats should have the right to an attorney, to sue humans," Reeves said. "Rats have no right to live in my house."

Page: 1 | 2 SINGLE PAGE

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

Christopher Beam is a Slate political reporter. Follow him on Twitter.

Photograph of 9/12 protesters by Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images.

COMMENTS

"Cap and Trade", when it was first rolled out in the late eighties, was considered a moderate, market-based approach to controlling carbon emissions. It was attacked largely from the left, by environmentalists who thought it gave too much wiggle room to polluters. How did we get the point where it's being held up as an example of Godless Socialism? Have we really moved that far to the right in the last thirty years; or is it just that most of the people screaming about it have no idea what it is?

-- steambadger
(To reply, click here)

I'm not one to march in protests, because I've always had a hard time figuring out exactly what the point of them is. I suppose the idea is to get on the news and to let bystanders know that a lot of people share the same basic opinion. The ultimate goal, of course, is usually some positive action, ending a war, civil rights, banning the bomb.

Incoherent protests like this 9/12 thing and the tea parties are even more confusing. They lack even the ultimate goal so seem to be kind of an abstract attempt at publicity. More of a flash mob than an organized protest.

Ultimately, I suppose this "protest" serves one primary goal, it promotes Glenn Beck's shows.

-- fletc3her
(To reply, click here)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES