Activism: How to measure it?
 

How do we measure the effects of advocacy and activism?

Does street activism make a difference?
Letters to the editor?
Websites?


I think they all make a difference but it's hard to measure. The percentage of "activists" in any society always seems to be a tiny percentage.

Measures of effectiveness are:

1. Recruitment;
2. Public response (honking horns, thumbs up, etc).
3. Opposition that shows up.
4. Publicity.
5. Opinion polls.


Sometimes it seems truly like there is indeed a "tide in the affairs of men" and that most are indifferent until they're directly threatened in some manner. When that tipping point is reached, activism increases and we now have 50 anti-immigrant rallies on a single weekend all over the country instead of a handful as was formerly the case.

Web sites are important because they're sources of information and organization.

Street activism is important because it energizes people, boosts morale, encourages further activism and is a source of direct contact with the public, if the opposing communists will allow this to occur.

It's like a small number of people have to keep the flame burning so that the tide can turn and burst into a conflagration.

I think the anti-immigration movement fed and fueled the tea party movement, but I don't think the tea party movement would exist if John McCain had won the election. Another example of the "Tide in the affairs of men" effect at work.

Why are you saying anti-immigrant? Twice, in fact, in the post directly above.

That term does not accurately describe the sentiments of the folks here or the ones at the tea parties this past weekend. At least not at the one I attended in Pasadena.

I believe that people in the street are more far likely to move a recalcitrant politician than phone calls, letters and emails.

I believe that web sites are valuable mainly for recruiting and getting information out as well as discussion. I believe websites which become over involved with bitching about the problem rather than solving the problem lose their anti illegal migration value, and not even phone calls, letters and emails get accomplished.

Something I have seen and find detrimental is the sites where a few same exact people are on all threads shouting exactly the same thing to the same exact people, calling each other names while shouting down and driving off reasoned discussion. Nothing gets accomplished in those situations.

Letters to the editor sometimes get printed, but I have found that sometimes what is printed has been so heavily edited that it gives a different idea or slant than what the writer had submitted, but the writer's name is on it rather than the editor's, and the editor always has the last word. It's worth a shot from time to time. Some papers will get tired of of a particular writer's stand, and quit printing the person's view.

And, hindsight has told me that in the case of two or three letters out of many I have submitted over the years the editor did me a favor by not printing them, not the least that they were hastily written and weren't good communication of my particular thought and I would have appeared as an ass.

I believe that there will probably always be more complainers than active participants.

I believe there is a negative return to placing a yard stick for activism - everyone is different, maybe some aren't ready for another level, there is a valid barrier to participation, or others may find themselves black balled from a career if they are identified on the street. Some of those people might be doing other doing things they really can't publicize. The opposition does try to identify anti illegal immigration activists, and there have been attempts to neutralize or punish activists if there is some leverage which can be applied. The problem with brow beating people who don't measure up to another's idea of what an acceptable level of activism is is that the accuser might not have all the information, or maybe drive off someone who isn't ready yet but just might be there when needed most in the future.

The other side of the coin is irrational or uncalled for criticism of a faithful participant by someone who's never left the house.

Some people who aren't participants might donate funds or other other assistance, but a potential problem with that is that occasionally some people seem to believe that there is an unmentioned string attached to their donations and that their voice is a little more "equal" than others.

No one is going to entirely agree with another person, and although it helps, it is not a requirement that everyone like one another in order to work together towards a goal. Disagreements and misunderstandings will happen, I see the problem is not having disagreements in which there may be some shouting but in attacks and bridge burnings over minor things.

Like it or not, people who have anti illegal migration beliefs are under a microscope, and the words and intents of those people will be twisted by people who much more have the medias' "ear", and nothing sells so much and works so well against the goal of immigration law enforcement as "white hate". Appearance counts.

For what it's worth.

A thoughtful analysis Ibe. I enjoyed reading it. I agree that people who take a public stand are more likely to influence politicians and the public. Traditional conservatives have eschewed street activism, but I think they're changing.

Another thing. Web sites provide more information about news events than main stream media. You can get video and all kinds of eye witness reports. One reason papers are disappearing. More people recognize their bias and agendas and increasingly rely on the web instead of the politically correct filter of the MSM.

I am anti-immigrant and most people secretly are. You speak your mind. I'll speak mine.

This whole hair splitting thing about being "anti-immigration" or just anti "illegal" immigration is a fig leaf used by cowards who are afraid of being called "racists" by the communists and the SPLC, ADL, etc. We have lost our country because people are more afraid of being called names than they are of being dispossessed and kicked out of their own cities. Why do you think most American cities are essentially off limits to Americans? Why do you think the "American dream" no longer applies to Americans? We're being sheared like sheep and when there's no more wool, they'll slaughter us for what's left.

The criminal ruling class that has seized control of what's left of the USA will call you a racist no matter what you do or say.

I don't want Mexicans or Muslims in my country legally or illegally. I don't want our cities transformed into filthy stinking slums by anyone, legally here or illegally here. I respect their countries. They should respect mine.

I think that Gheen's organization, "Americans for Legal Immigration" is a huge fraud. If he really supported legal immigration he would support amnesty because amnesty increases legal immigration, something he supposedly supports. There is something weirdly Orwellian, not to mention dishonest and schitzophrenic, about an organization that supports policies that are a complete opposite of its stated goal. All immigration needs to be stopped. If they want to work hard, let them work hard in their own countries.

If you believe in "legal' immigration, then you should be honest enough to demand amnesty to achieve your goal of achieving more "legal" immigration instead of going through a bunch of intellectual gymnastics and contortions to try to earn the approval of Communists and liberals because you're afraid they're going to call you a "racist" or a "nativist." They will call you those names anyway and will dispossess and ultimately kill you any way.

First of all, I think you might be quite presumptuous to say that most Americans are anti-immigrant. I mean, I understand why you feel that way, but I doubt the majority of Americans do. You probably were affected more negatively than most, but if you lived in other areas where immigrants maintain a higher degree of assimilation or have higher standards to begin with, you'd likely find your neighbors and co-workers think well of immigrants, and would reject your attitude. That doesn't mean to say they would support continuing high levels of immigration, but it is my opinion that they would find your solution overly harsh or unneccessary.
I do see your point about the misnomer of legal immigration, and agree somewhat. the term legal immigration does not mean the same thing to all, but your probably right that some have latched on to the term for propaganda-esque purposes. Maybe not though. It's their opinion, so I'll let them defend.

This one though:You also have some double standards. If you don't want our cities transformed into stinking slums by anyone, then it is not entirely pure to single out immigrants. I think I undertand what you meant there, but it does point out the need to adhere to your own standards of reference, lest you be thought a fraud also. lastly, you have singled out muslim and mexican, so your scope has narrowed quite a bit. I doubt you'll find much support for such narowly tailored immigration controls. If I understand you correctly, you want zero levels of immigration from those demographics. It wouldn't fit in well here I think.

I think there would be a huge amount of support for zero immigration, especially from third world countries.

Sen. Chris Dodd of Conn said the US has a real umemployment rate of 20%.

Question: What is the proper number of "legal" immigrants you would like to see admitted into the US in order to compete with unemployed Americans for jobs, housing and public benefits?

I don't think we need any competition in those categories Don. But limiting immigration from what you refer to as third world countries might be politically difficult to obtain. You have to remember to include business and religious immigrant proponents when you gauge the climate for closing or curtailing immigration numbers. I think there may be a little more than you realize. I'm saying that in relation to your claim of "huge support", and not because I'm arguing against it. It wouldn't pay to fool ourselves with wishful thinking.

You say you favor legal immigration. I asked what is the number of "legal" immigrants you want admitted to compete with unemployed Americans for jobs, housing, public benefits.

Please answer my question.

Where did I say that?