Zinn’s thesis 3:
Change in a democracy comes from the bottom up, from protest, and not from the top.
Opposing view:
Ignoring for the moment the obvious point that Zinn does not appear to consider the United States to be a real democracy, there is a problem with how a particular historical view can be made palatable by carefully selecting some facts and events while ignoring or minimizing others. Not all change comes from protest but if one looks only at those years and episodes where popular protests occurred, it may appear that way.
Practically speaking, legislators at the national, state, and local level routinely review new pieces of legislation introduced by themselves or in response to suggestions made by members of their constituencies: that is, in the usual civil manner of social discourse and not due to popular protest. This is the responsive two-way nature of our democratic institutions; our representative political system is supposed to work in that manner.
Elected legislators continuously respond to the ideas of others through conversation, correspondence, petitions, and organized group activity. This is a legitimate way for change to occur and is part of an on-going process. Certainly there is room for popular measures arising from the people through peaceful channels of communication but that is not exactly the process Zinn has in mind when he suggests all social change is due to protest.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving is a prime example of how individuals can unite to bring about change to the laws. It does not mean legislators were against such proposals put forward by M.A.D.D. or only agreed to them when street protests overwhelmed then into agreement: nothing of the kind! A group of mothers chose to organize a campaign with a specific goal in mind: to reduce the number of persons killed or injured by drunk drivers.
Legislators responded by moving in the same direction, drafting the appropriate legislation to stiffen the penalties for “driving under the influence” of alcohol (D.U.I.) Sometimes it takes a dedicated group to bring to the attention of a legislative body the scope of a problem and suggested solutions, but this process is not evidence for Zinn’s thesis that 1) legislators only look out for their own interests and 2) they are not likely to pass legislation useful to the community unless popular protests on the streets force them to do so.
At the federal level, our Constitution has always been flexible enough to recognize that changing social conditions will require new laws. It is a hallmark of the Constitution that reflects the genius of its framers: disperse power through three distinct but inter-locking branches of government, commonly known as the system of “checks and balances”.
In addition, the Constitution recognizes that an established manner for adding new laws should be in place. The vast majority of laws in this country come about through peaceful procedural steps, based on facts and needs, and not merely as a response to protest. There are indeed hundreds if not thousands of laws which have been passed at the federal, state, and regional levels which were not brought about by protest. A person need only glance at a complete set of the multi-volume legal codes of any city or municipality to see that this is so.
One could amend Zinn’s thesis to argue that key pieces of legislation, especially during times of economic hardship affecting the living and working conditions of ordinary people, do come about as a response to protest; there is some truth to the proposition restated in this manner.
Likewise, significant milestones in civil rights legislation can be tied directly to popular protest. Yet this connection, as important as it is, does not suffice to say all change comes about from protest when, in fact, governmental agencies at all levels are constantly obliged to consider new laws that will benefit their communities. It is one matter to acknowledge that some laws come about as a result of protest but quite another to suggest that laws are only passed when there is a great enough demand through popular protest to make such change happen.
Naturally, Zinn favors the re-telling of dramatic protests as a literary device in his analysis of the U.S. history; his thesis and examples go hand in hand through careful selection of those social moments that best fit this interpretation. While many of these protests were (and are) truly influential, they hardly tell the whole story. To focus exclusively on protest virtually ignores the honorable conduct among thousands of business and political leaders throughout the nation and through the decades.
The Executive Branch has fifteen departments that quietly go about their daily work, making such changes and adjustments to policy and enforcement as are needed to improve the lives of Americans: all done without a great deal of fanfare. In short, Zinn’s approach notwithstanding, not all legislative change and enforcement change occurs only when there’s popular protest.
The history of protest is only one chapter within a much longer story of American social development from the nation’s inception to the present: an on-going multi-faceted story that occurs on many levels and among many kinds of people.
America’s story of innovation and productivity draws on the best of the people’s creativity, labor, and beliefs to keep our nation free and democratic. The people themselves, along with their elected officials, are the best guarantee that America remains open to further change.
Whether such social change is self-initiated through the efforts of legislators or as the result of the people engaging in peaceful protest, America continues to find new ways to develop.
If Zinn had called his book “A People’s History of Protest” the narrative that followed would have been far more appropriate but in calling it “A People’s History” the reader has a right to expect a multi-layered approach to the causes and stages of social change. It is one-dimensional thinking to claim all change is due to protest; in pushing this thematic approach to its limits, Zinn undervalues the complexity and nuances of America society from its founding to the present.
