What is the value of large rallies?

[BlackTerrel]

In a number of the Beck threads I saw a number of people post "we should do this", "why aren't we doing this" etc... my question is why? What is the value of these rallies in the grand scheme of things? IE do these rallies actually change anything, cause power to shift, bring about new legislation....

I don't fully get it. Without taking sides pro or against Beck let's just say out of a country of 300 million there are 100 million that more or less agree with him politically. So he got 0.5% of those 100 million to come to DC and listen to him chat for a while. He's preaching to the converted. He's not changing anyone's mind.

500K came out to DC to listen to him talk for three hours. More than 8 million tune in to listen to him talk for four hours daily, and another 3 million watch him on TV. How is this any more beneficial for people that believe in his cause?

I could see how rallies could have been powerful forces a hundred years ago, or even 50 years ago. But in the age of the internet, when information travels from sea to sea at the speed of light I don't really see the benefit of so many people getting together. They might feel good about it, but from a strategic value generating goal I don't see it.

Am I wrong?

[ronpaulhawaii]

IINM, most of the peaceful revolutions in history have had large demonstrations as an integral, if not the primary, component

[jake]

doesn't it seem like modern rallies don't mean jack though? we'd need 5 million!!

[Stary Hickory]

Keep in mind message boards almost serve the same purpose as rallies. We do meetups online it's much more efficient.

[BlackTerrel]

IINM, most of the peaceful revolutions in history have had large demonstrations as an integral, if not the primary, component

And most (all?) of those revolutions occurred at a time when information would take weeks to travel across a country.

Is that still relevant in the age of the internet?

All these 500,000 people agreed with Beck even before they showed up. Now they still agree with Beck when they go home. What has changed? Will this not be forgotten in a week?

[libertybrewcity]

Rallies may bring down the morale of the opponents, potentially discouraging turnout.

Rallies are a place to network. The internet takes care of that more and more, but physical activism is usually better. I value personal interactions more.

Rallies bring media coverage to a cause. If you do a google news search the Glenn Beck rally brings about thousands upon thousands of articles that seep through the media and reach millions upon millions more. The TEA party news may keep up the "hype" about the tea party, and encourage people to get active.

The rally is also a way for Glenn Beck to increase his influence and make money.

[MelissaWV]

And most (all?) of those revolutions occurred at a time when information would take weeks to travel across a country.

Is that still relevant in the age of the internet?

All these 500,000 people agreed with Beck even before they showed up. Now they still agree with Beck when they go home. What has changed? Will this not be forgotten in a week?

There is nothing that takes the place of images of genuine, tangible crowds. When someone talks about Obama's swearing in, do you recall the speeches and singing? Do you remember precisely what was said without a YouTube to remind you? Do you remember that there were a LOT of people there?

Now, here's the thing. Do you think it was really necessary to cement his popularity and the perception of it? Or did it seem, at the time, like a representation of his support from "the People"? Yet, when people look back, they won't even rely on his being elected to point out his popularity so much as these images of people watching the speeches. It's always been New Year's Eve at the same time everywhere in NYC, but people still gather in Times Square, packed like sardines. There's something to be said for those crowds.

With no crowds, or "minimal" crowds, the support on the internet is marginalized. We're a bunch of internet spammers. We're just statistics (as viewership and listenership are with Beck). We're not actual people who care about something enough to show up to events. Voting, mind you, is distinctly "showing up to an event." A whole lot of the Ron Paul Movement's problem is that people show up at the wrong times or not at all :p

The second part of this, obviously, is coverage. If there's a massive crowd and no one's there to see it, it only serves to confirm the crowd's preheld beliefs. If there's coverage, it serves to spread the word.

[ronpaulhawaii]

And most (all?) of those revolutions occurred at a time when information would take weeks to travel across a country.

Is that still relevant in the age of the internet?

...

The peaceful revolutions I am speaking of mostly all happened in the age of telephones/internet...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution

[lester1/2jr]

it was like a flash mob. yeah we're all out here at the same time!

[Anti Federalist]

Roughly ten percent of the people of Germany took to the streets to tear down the Berlin wall, sack the East German police offices and overthrow the government.

You'd need twice that many to overcome the people's apathy and entrenched power of the US police state.

So a mob of about 66 million people might do it.

Let's round it up for sake of easy numbers and call it 70 million people.

[Aratus]

1/3rd of our vast sea of tv sets saw a clip of ms. sarah palin
let alone a clip of mr. glenn beck yesterday and many of
those same said tv sets also had a clip of rev. al sharpton!!!