Facing the Conflict over Nonviolence Among DNC Protesters

Representatives for many of the citizen groups planning events during the Democratic National Convention met together in Denver on Sunday morning, July 20, with the dual purpose of sharing information about their plans and trying to heal a rift among the activists.

The so called "consulta" fell short of being representative of all the diverse organizations planning activities during the DNC. More than 85 percent of those attending were from either Recreate 68 or Unconventional Denver.

I did not hear anybody at the consulta, for example, overtly declare they were representing the coalition of immigrant rights organizations planning a nonviolent mass demonstration on Thursday, August 28, the last day of the convention.

Not every group represented at the consulta were members of the Recreate 68 coalition. These attendees included Code Pink (playfully creative nonviolent street theater protests), Food Not Bombs (feeding those in "tent city" and other protester encampments), The People Call For Change (evening programs during the DNC to build a positive vision of the future), The World is Listening (a network of compassionate listeners at the DNC so people can voice their visions), and the Network for Spiritual Progressives (holding an independent two day interfaith conference at the start of the DNC with Rabbi Michael Lerner, Matthew Fox and others supporting the Global Marshall Plan).

There was only token representation from the Alliance for Real Democracy (ARD), which I'm told was begun by a few people who walked away from Recreate 68 because that coalition refused to publicly renounce any and all use of violence at the DNC. The Alliance has independently grown since then to include diverse groups that were never part of R68.

The contrast between Recreate 68 and the Alliance for Real Democracy is striking.

Beyond staging a free educational Festival of Democracy in a Denver park, Recreate 68 is planning a big anti-war march on the Sunday morning before the convention, a march that some fear may result in a police riot.

Unconventional Denver has not openly declared their action plans beyond saying they want to "disrupt" the convention. An affiliate of the Unconventional Action coalition, this group of self-described anarchists opposes "electoral politics" with an upraised black fist as its main symbol. They remind me of the radical socialist groups in the Vietnam War era. However, I wonder if they know the earliest anarchists like William Godwin actually opposed revolutionary action as a distraction from the moral self rule that makes centralized government unnecessary.

The Alliance for Real Democracy, in my judgment, offers a more positive approach with its plans for a "Resurrection City Free University" as an educational program combined with an art and music festival. Their plans appeal to me as a nonviolent way of protesting the U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan while also calling attention to global climate change.

Almost half of the consulta was devoted to talking about the schism between R68 and ARD. For some there, this dispute was philosophical. For others the dispute was emotional, as if those who left R68 to start ARD had committed a personal betrayal.

Viewpoints on this differ, but for me, nonviolence is the core issue at the heart of the rift between Recreate 68 and the Alliance for Real Democracy.

In my opinion, civil disobedience is perfectly legitimate so long as the protesters are nonviolent. Even "direct action" has a place in some situations. If you feel a need to fill the jails, that's a choice, and sometimes it's the right choice, providing you go limp when the police arrest you.

The key is not to resist arrest and give the adrenaline-pumped police any excuse for brutality. Cameras will be recording the scene, most likely, so make sure that you remain blameless for any violence. Ensure moral ethics intersect with smart public relations.

My concern is that some of the member groups within the Recreate 68 coalition, including Unconventional Denver, may intend to start violence or incite the police to violence.

I've heard R68 leaders say they personally are opposed to any violence at the DNC, but they consistently decline to declare that they do not want to see any members of their coalition become violent.

The R68 position, if my understanding is accurate, is that each group in the coalition is free it make its own decisions regarding the use of violence. For me, this vague stance is morally unacceptable.

Hoping for clarity about the R68 position on violence, I openly asked during the consulta for a show of hands by those who believe violence is acceptable at the DNC.

Only a few hands went into the air. I later was told off the record that my question offended some of those attending the event who felt the issue had already been addressed. This was first time in this assembly, though, and I was seeking the truth.

Although I would have preferred to see no hands raised, the fact that only a few hands rose into the air pleased me. I learned later that some there simply chose not to answer my question, thinking it was rude, yet I suspect that some did not raise their hands from a fear that police spies were in the room. Indeed, my question made people uncomfortable.

Consequently, I did not really find out how widespread is the acceptance of violence within the R68 coalition?

Comments in the discussion that followed my "rude" question told me that at goodly number of those at the meeting hold a belief that the police intend to get violent. I also heard activists there declare that they'd feel justified in fighting back to defend themselves. I heard several assert their right to "self defense." I felt my heart sink.

A philosophical friend told me later that while he supports and advocates Gandhi's principle of Ahimsa, nonviolence rooted in a respect for the divinity within all life, he's not adverse to swatting a mosquito. Well, I've swatted my share of mosquitos, but that's not how I view the police. I see them as moral beings doing their jobs by their best lights, just as I see the protesters as moral being doing their jobs by their best lights. I believe the vast majority on all sides want the DNC protests to be peaceful.

My understanding is that a commitment to nonviolence is a central theme uniting all the groups in the Alliance for Real Democracy. If my information is correct that this issue (more than egoism) is why ARD sent only token representation to the consulta, then is the schism between Recreate 68 and ARD too deep to bridge?

The good news here is the consulta attendees have wisely agreed the next three-hour meeting in August will include an hour devoted to reconciliation between the factions. This will be facilitated by The World is Listening and one of my ministerial colleagues in the Network of Spiritual Progressives.

With the convention only weeks away by then, a heartfelt reconciliation at the next consulta may or may not produce any tangible results during the DNC, such as one massive coordinated action filling the streets with peaceful people marching before the world's media. The alternative will be a series of separate and smaller protests, mostly peaceful, yet some not so.

If the attempt at mediation and reconciliation fails in the short term, the effort may have some long-term benefits. I see it as a good sign that those calling for the end of war are willing to try creating peace in their own community. As Gandhi advocated, we must be the change we wish to see in the world.