In print | Published October 8, 2009

To the Editor:

As a leader in Casino-Free Philadelphia, I appreciated the acknowledgment of our movement and our relative success. I agree with the sentiment that mass actions with no coherent message are bound to have — well — a mixed public message, at best. But mixed messaging is not the real issue.

The diluted power of action from the G20 is because activists operated without any action logic.

It does not clearly follow that if you oppose, say, the Afghanistan war or the government responses to climate change that you should take over the streets of Pittsburgh. The actions created a space for self-expression. But the actions did not explain their issue. Contrast Casino-Free Philadelphia’s recent blockade of the proposed SugarHouse site. We blocked trucks from entering, in an effort to slow down and halt SugarHouse’s development. Fourteen were arrested, including Lang Visiting Professor George Lakey.

That action has logic. Oppose SugarHouse casino? Stop it from being built.

Actions that require much more explanation are less effective. And they result in exactly the kind of mixed issue focus that confuses. Protesters interested in effective change would do well to stop using those tactics.

Rallies are really just big gatherings where people say we oppose or support this policy. And if others show up, they add other opinions, watering down the message. That’s why in its history Casino-Free Philadelphia has virtually abandoned the tactic of a rally.

Instead, I believe the best actions reflect our message. You should know what we stand for without reading a sign or talking to a media spokesperson. That’s action logic. And that’s powerful activism.

Daniel Hunter
Co-founder of Casino-Free Philadelphia
Trainer with the Organizing Skills Institute

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »