Herron: Protesters’ detachment muddle causes

As the protesters began to assemble at Arsenal Park in Lawrenceville, it appeared they’d be… As the protesters began to assemble at Arsenal Park in Lawrenceville, it appeared they’d be outnumbered by media and curious onlookers. Then, the crowd of protesters grew. Their energy escalated.

The protesters did not have unified beliefs. Some were anarchists, some were environmentalists, but almost all felt that the G-20 was at odds with their view of the world. And then there were the more conventional advocacy groups: pro-life advocates, evangelicals, PETA representatives and, of course, the hordes of onlooking ACLU legal observers working within the system. Many protesters were there merely to have their voices heard in a place where people were listening. Isaac Yoder, a pro-life advocate, said his group’s strategy — to “go where there’s a big crowd” — boosted its numbers. The gathering was truly the sort of “marketplace of ideas” we so often hear about but rarely see.

These protesters were creative, as protesters often are by necessity. As they marched, they chanted,“An-ti cap-a-list-a.” A lone voice shouted, “Let’s take our country back!” He didn’t, however, say when or by whom it had been taken. I was surprised that he had it to begin with. The crowd cheered nonetheless.

The dissidents, it seemed, were expecting some sort of tumultuous police encounter. It wasn’t so much “if” but “when.”

“When” happened as the protest began moving down Liberty Avenue and the Pittsburgh police officially declared the protest an “unlawful assembly” and told all those gathered to disperse or face “risk of physical injury.”

The protesters stood steadfast in defense of their beliefs. They marched on. What they specifically believe in, however, seemed unclear to me. A crowded mob is certainly not an efficient forum for a nuanced debate. Often the protesters’ vague arguments seemed too detached for the mainstream to comprehend. We understand, for example, what the Tea Party protests meant because they represent an ideal that parallels ideas immortalized 230 years ago in colonial United States.

When I prodded some of the protestors with questions, there was often a sense of uneasiness and reluctance in answering. I thought this odd. Why have ideas if you’re unwilling, or unable, to elucidate them?

E-mail Mason at mph20@pitt.edu.