There are a lot of people upset with America's current international policies, especially the wars pursued in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have not, however, seen the same massive protests that occurred in response to the Vietnam War. Does this signal that opposition is weaker? That dissenters are more apathetic? Perhaps, but then again maybe something else is going on...

The Cunning Realist argues that people are venting their opposition online and, therefore, are failing to take the more productive course of action — public demonstrations.

When one has something to say about Iraq, or the Social Security debate, or another issue, what are the outlets? E-mail; the internet; blogs; hundreds of cable television and radio talk shows, many of which are shouting matches that replace and short-circuit the anger that forty years ago one would have taken to the street. Similarly, video games dissipate energy and offer an escape from complicated issues for people in their teens and twenties---traditionally the crucial demographic for social and political change. Today, many student courses and assignments take place exclusively on-line; the cauldron of campus debate is a shell of what it used to be.

The basic effect: Fragmentation and dispersal. Forty years ago, when the discontented met the angry, public action was inevitable; it was the only outlet. Today, technology has transformed the protesting masses into the chattering masses. It has short-circuited and dispersed public discontent on the individual level---before it has a chance to turn into collective, publicly-visible action. The angry watch Fox News, then go to bed happy that a television host has given voice to their thoughts neatly and concisely. The discontented log onto MoveOn.org, read some message boards and send an angry e-mail, then turn off their computers confident that they've "done their part." Corporate advertisers love fragmentation; they refer to it as a "target demographic." Perhaps the word "target" is appropriate in more ways than one.

One might argue that technology has actually enhanced the public's ability to communicate opinion to its leaders faster and more efficiently than ever; public opinion polls would be one example. This is a fair point. But the key is that when change is the objective, efficiency and passion don't go together. Large-scale change is never efficient, nor is it as easy as tapping on a keyboard; it evolves from protest that is passionate, messy, and loud. Electronic efficiency is the enemy of effective protest because it enables rapid, clean dispersal of emotion.

I doubt that modern technology is the only factor involved here, but I don’t think that the above ideas can be dismissed. Surely there is something valid in the idea that if people expend some of their passion about an issue online, then they are less likely to be moved to gather with friends physically and begin moving in the streets.

The other issue that needs to be addressed is whether mass public demonstrations really are the most effective way for people to make their wishes known outside of the actual election process. CR thinks it is and it's a reasonable idea, but is that all there is?

Read More:

• Guide to Ethics and Morality
• News About Ethics