There are many forms of protest (marches, civil disobedience, sit-ins) as well as alternative forms of political action (e.g., campaign work, LTE, blogging, voting).  How effective are those actions? A new study shows that an increase in the number of protests in a year increases the likelihood of favorable legislation being passed by Congress by 1.2% to 9.5%.  

Our government and corporate America would love nothing more than for us to buy their myths used to deter us from protesting.  They say that protest is only used by a few extremist wackos who engage in violence. The truth is that if we unilaterally reject this effective political action, the "few" who will continue to use it will be our government and corporate America. The truth is that our police engage in more violence at protests than most protesters, except that violence is called legitimate.  They say that protesters are the fringe elements of society. The truth is that photographs in a video below show that protests since the Iraq war commenced involved members of all ages from our families. They say that "normal channels" should be used in lieu of protest.  The truth is that studies show that protests ---both during civil rights movement and now --- are more effective than traditional channels.  One reason is that normal channels are biased in favor of the powerful and protesters generally champion causes of those not with power. Another reason is that our government (and Bush is a master here) engages in conduct that accomplishes the twin goals of weakening or destroying normal channels while also deterring Americans from engaging in political action. They say that normal channels are preferred over protest, which they claim is ineffective. Historical successes and empirical data show this claim to be false.  A recent study shows that protest significantly increases the passage of laws favorable to the social movement.  How many laws have been passed favorable to our causes based on our use of normal channels of campaigning, voting, LTE, blogging, etc?  They say that protest is not beneficial.  Bush knows this claim is false. He has squashed protest because it is a viable means for even a few to alert the public to issues not covered by the MSM, which is just one of the many benefits of protest.

This diary does not advocate that we stop using normal channels. It simply tries to show that we should not unilaterally reject protest as one of our tools to further our progressive goals.

The myth that protest is used by a minority of Americans.

This myth is used to narrow what is defined as protest in order to discourage progressives from using protest to effect change while permitting our government and corporate America to use protest, only when they protest, it is called exercising corporate or governmental prerogatives.

Protest occurs in many forms and by many different groups in society.  Whether or not the activity is called a protest, and thus subject to derogatory characterizations and stereotypes, depends on who participates in the protest. If liberals engage in conduct to oppose a law or another group in society (such as employers), then it is called a protest. When corporate America engages in the same conduct, it is called exercising corporate prerogatives:

Dominant groups occasionally engage in struggles with each other, as in the case of elections, corporate takeovers and the medical profession's resistance to state regulation. The actions of these groups are not usually called protest, though. The term protest is applied to actions of groups that are painted as outside the mainstream. When trade unions go on strike that is recognised as a form of political protest--and often stigmatised--but when corporations redirect investments out of a particular area (a 'capital strike') that is taken to be a normal exercise of corporate prerogatives.

What about Bush's presidential prerogatives? Last month we learned that Bush supports political protest in the form of secret coups or political boycotts.  As the Washington Post reported, Bush stated that widespread frustration may cause the people to replace the current Iraqi government:  

"The fundamental question is: Will the government respond to the demands of the people?" Bush said. Stopping short of directly endorsing Maliki, as he has on several previous occasions, Bush continued, "If the government doesn't respond to the demands of the people, they will replace the government."

So, Bush believes that the people in a democracy have a right to "decide to replace the current government with a more capable one."  Now, Bush could be talking about the "normal channels" of an election.  However, as mcjoan noted, it would take too long to organize new elections. Several diaries have addressed the alternative action of a planned coup, with a little help from Bush team. Whether a coup or political boycotts, this is just another word for political protest, government style. As it currently stands, Maliki has "lost nearly half the members of his cabi