President Obama has endorsed the Stewart/Colbert rally set to take place at the end of the month. The president got the name of the rally wrong in his remarks last week but seems to support the general goal — restoring sanity. Given its presidential support, one can only assume that this rally will be a success. But what defines success for a Washington political rally? Has the president hitched his wagon to a successful rally? What if it fails? How does one judge success or failure when critiquing a Washington rally? I have a metric.
At first I thought the metric for measuring a rally’s success was the number of people in attendance. If you have lots of people, then you have a successful rally for your cause. It’s like a party. If you have a lot of people at your party, you must be a successful individual. Surely the same logic should suffice with a Washington rally. Then I found out that the National Park Service doesn’t assess the number of people at rallies; they haven’t done that since the 90s. So, as an organizer, you can just make that up. Beck claims his rally drew 500,000 people while CBS News claims it was closer to 87,000. The organizers of the One Nation Rally, the liberal counterweight to the Beck spectacle, claim they had as many people as Beck at their Saturday rally. But, alas, an AP report said their crowd was “less dense” than Beck’s and “didn’t reach as far to the edges.” Arianna Huffington announced she is providing bussing to the Stewart/Colbert rally. She seems like the type to throw a well-attended party, so we can assume there will be a crowd, but are her minions “edge-worthy”? Clearly this metric is flawed.
Then I determined that the metric must be about timing. Numerous anti- and pro-war rallies have been staged around actual wars, so perhaps a rally’s proximity to a major event dictates its success. This logic went right out the window when I examined the conservative organizations promoting Beck’s rallies and the over 400 liberal organizations supporting the One Nation Rally — many of which actively advocate on issues close to their respective ideological hearts. Something important must be occurring in Washington right now that requires each of their presences — some important vote that requires their unique voices and mobilization. Then I looked at the dates and immediately eliminated this theory, as the Beck rally occurred during the congressional recess and the One Nation rally occurred one day after members of Congress had wrapped up their business to go campaign.
Then the metric came to me. Dr. King’s historic rally made it clear what the metric really was about — immediate legislative action to repair a problem. Dr. King’s rally was an integral part of the push for the Civil Rights Act, which led to fundamental reforms. But for years the rallies held in Washington have lacked any connection to an important problem that requires immediate legislation, legislators to move on that legislation, and people to move to make those legislators act. Instead, each rally has become a weekend media parlor game of guessing crowd attendance and registering the general “feeling” of the attendees. These games lack that old question “Will Congress Act?” Whether it’s an immigration reform rally, an abortion rally, a Beck rally, or the One Nation Rally, each rally leads to less real conversation about American law and more spectacle.
Dr. King got it wrong. His rally was unsuccessful by today’s standards. A successful rally these days requires the absence of action or “change.” In other words, it’s just a big joke. And toward that end, Stewart and Colbert have already succeeded.
Maury Litwack is a lobbyist, former Hill staffer and author of the recently published The Capitol Plan — A Comprehensive Washington Advocacy Strategy.
