Fascist Democracy on the Center Stage

The dance was slated to begin at 6:00 p.m. sharp on Friday, April 18. The time was relatively early compared to the dances most students partake in at Brown University. This particular instance, however, would not feature some student DJ showcasing his iTunes library, or a bar with one dollar drinks in a crowded room. Rather, as the fliers for the event instructed, the group was to meet in downtown Providence to “take back public space with pure FUNK!” This was the second coming of the “Funk the War” dance party, and the participants were all riled up to display their contempt for the conflict in Iraq by doing nothing other than dancing in opposition and using signs to display their stance to passersby. This gathering and the first Funk the War dance party have highlighted what is wrong with liberal activism today.

The fliers that decorated nearly every door on campus were posted by the Brown and Providence Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), a radically liberal organization which dates to the anti-Vietnam War student activism of the 1960s. On March 19, 2008, amidst a revival in the organization, the attendees were to “Dance…in solidarity against the War in Iraq and imperialism in Afghanistan,” coinciding with the five year anniversary of the start of the War in Iraq. The first “Funk the War” event had an estimated 50 to 60 students who, as Brown Daily Herald reporter Isabel Gottlieb wrote, “spent over an hour dancing in Kennedy Plaza” (“Protests mark five years of war in Iraq,” Mar. 20). The following day, a larger demonstration was held by SDS in which, at one point, upwards of twenty students occupied an Army National Guard recruiting office in nothing short of a classic sit-in. Police were dispatched once employees of the office noted that the door was being blocked by the protesters, resulting in the arrest of seven Brown students – something that SDS was quoted as being “very proud of.” Funk the War II was described to me as being much the same as the first dance party. Once again the students dressed themselves in ostentatious clothing, to complement their music, and were flamboyantly “[celebrating] resistance” – but the democracy ended there.

I am not going to attempt to attack SDS for failing to effect a real change in U.S. policy in Iraq, or for having the sense of elite entitlement in thinking that their dancing in downtown Providence would somehow have an inflammatory effect throughout the state or country. In fact, I would be willing to wager that their intention was certainly not to seek real change, but rather, as they clearly stated, to come together in solidarity and express their rights of demonstration and free speech against a government that they see as acting unjustly. If that is the case, then I wish all the power to them both now and in the future. It is our constitutional right as citizens of this country to speak up and out against laws that we regard as unjust. I give them credit for coming together in person and for sitting-in at the recruitment office. No, I do not agree with some of the stances they have been taking, nor do I feel that targeting an Army National Guard recruiting office was worth imprisonment, but I agree with their taking action. It comes in stark contrast to the overwhelming apathy of our generation (ever heard, “I’m going to write in my blog about this!”?); this indifference has cost us the credibility of many baby boomers that got out there and did something.

That being said, my praise for the Students for a Democratic Society ends there. Much of what has come from that event and in the time after it has left me with very conflicted opinions on how they define a “democratic society,” and how I do the same. One example immediately jumps to my mind. In my attempts to obtain a more holistic understanding of the events and goals of SDS, I reached out to hear from the group and was initially told that a press contact from the Providence chapter would soon get back to me. Not too long after, however, I was informed that because some of the College Republicans staging a counter-demonstration had “conducted themselves inappropriately,” and because the group was hesitant to contact me at all, I never received adequate answers.

If democracy is to be defined as expressing oneself regardless of social norms and constraints, then why was SDS so secretive with me about the events of its public protest? Were the counter-demonstrators from the College Republicans not allowed to “take back public space…in solidarity” like SDS, simply because their views did not match the goals of that organization? Why were they censored?

The inappropriateness of SDS did not, however, end there. Several members of the counter-demonstration reported being nothing short of sexually harassed, as scantily-clad SDS dancers encroached, grinded, and otherwise made unwelcomed physical advances to the point where the tensions were close to becoming violent between the two groups. Beyond that, the censorship continued when the College Republicans tried to air their views. That is, several of the signs that those counter-demonstrators brandished were forcibly stolen and then torn by members of SDS. Perhaps their content was too “radical,” or for one reason or another, SDS just did not agree with them. You do not have to agree with what the signs may have said in order to understand why this was morally and socially incorrect. What right does a “democratic” society have in telling a group that their ideas are wrong and that they must be suppressed with physical force? Similarly, as in the case with the Army National Guard recruiting office, what right does a “democratic” society have in deciding against a voluntary enlistment for somebody? All that was planned by both groups was wholly democratic in nature, but apparently even democracy was too much to handle for SDS.

The events that unfolded that Friday evening and thereafter should come as a great embarrassment to both the Brown and Providence Students for a Democratic Society. Expressing the right to free speech does not extend only as far as the scope of the goals of one person or group. Free speech encompasses all points of agreement and disagreement, and in any form. SDS earned my respect for being an active group, but it exemplified the sorry state of liberal activism, specifically what it means to be closed-minded, a term that is too often thrown at conservatives. Just as this article can be disagreed with, so too can anything and everything else. Perhaps someday, SDS at Brown can actually become a group of the people, by the people, for the people, but without excluding the people.