Back in Auckland and Fixing the Anti-War Movement

Gulf War II began earlier this week while we were up in the Carribbean-esque Whitsunday Group of Islands off the east coast of Australia, about 1500km north of Sydney. You can only have so much sun and fun, so much of our time was spent watching the war coverage.

Fixing the Anti-war Movement

It's clear that the strategy the anti-war groups are pursuing isn't going to work. In addition to the bombs dropping last week, mass organized protests started as well. These demonstrations were generally portrayed by the English-speaking media as disorganized and without much reason to their madness. Little time was spent on the reasons why these folks by the millions were against the war. The media, instead of interviewing intelligent spokespeople for the anti-war movement, interviewed "joe-blow" on the street who invariably was unable to cogently explain why he was protesting. One of the most impressive speakers was actually a 5 year-old kid who, when asked why he was against the war said, "Because people die." A better explanation than most!

Given that the media gives little coverage to the anti-war movement other than "here's 15,000 crazies who were arrested in San Francisco" and "here's a 6 year-old child to represent your movement", the anti-war movement is sadly stuck in the 60s. It's painfully obvious that the folks in charge of the government have learned that civil dissent objectively reported in the media can be devastating. This is what happened in the 70s as the media got out of control and went against Vietnam. I don't know how this happens (other than through the influence of advertisers and their $), but it's clear that the media is not going to provide coverage that accurately represents both sides of the argument. When was the last time NBC or CNN showed a clear, articulate anti-war speaker? It just doesn't happen and it won't.

So, I believe these protest groups should rethink their strategy. Instead of closing down campus buildings at Berkeley or the Bay Bridge, hit the politicans where it hurts -- their re-election money. At this URL, you can locate the top 10 donors to the Republican party: http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/contrib.asp?Cmte=RPC. Take a look. (Interestingly, before 2000 Microsoft was nowhere with regards to political donations. In 2002, they donated big dollars and the case against them was dropped. Coincidence?)

The strategy for the anti-war groups should be simple: pick one of these donors and start a national boycott of their products. Protest at their headquarters. Hold them responsible for the war. If the Republicans won't listen to the voters, they'll definitely listen to the people who pay the bills at Republican National Headquarters.

As for which company, pick one where they basically supply commodity products and where consumer switching costs are low. In addition, pick one where people against the war are likely to spend big $ and where the logo and brand are VERY visible. I'd have to analyze each a bit closer, but AFLAC, AT&T and Verizon would be great victims. These companies should be boycotted until they say they will no longer donate to the Republican party unless they stop the war.

As for implementation, use email and a website. Allow people to register as participants of the boycott of a particular company. Ask them to forward the boycott email to 10 friends, etc. Simple Internet marketing stuff that I won't go into in much detail.

Simple idea in general, but sadly I don't think the anti-war guys are going to get anywhere without a bit more strategic thinking. What worked in the 60s won't work today, just as Saddam's tanks from the same decade are not going to do well against Pentium-age Abrams monsters currently heading northwest in Iraq now.