Apres-work on Friday, I headed over to the west lawn of the Capitol for a protest against the noxious RAVE Act (that’s “Reducing Americans’ Vulnerability to Ecstacy” — how very droll). There were a handful of anti-RAVE signs here and there, but for the most part it seemed like a big ol’ dance party. And, frankly, most of the DJs seemed to be spinning more interesting stuff than the thoroughly standard beats dropped on an average night at Nation. Still, I have to say, there’s something pretty cool about twirling like a freak in a freak mob with the Capitol Building as scenery… even if you need to label your party a protest in order to do it. But as Joanne McNeil observes, it’s not clear how much Congress is going to be swayed by a spectacle that probably represents everything they’re sure the pwecious, pwecious childwen must be kept far, far away from. It makes decent footage, so the event may garner some media coverage (though all I’ve seen so far is on IndyMedia), but the general public may not react much differently from the average legislator.
What the “raver movement” (not sure there really is one already, but the legislative onslaught is making it necessary for one to emerge) needs is a respectable face. The 60s had no shortage of acidheads, but it was Harvard psychologist Timothy Leary who came to symbolize psychedelic advocacy. I’ve long been a booster of progressive/libertarian coalitions on specific issues — first, because it makes it more difficult to pigeonhole the people advancing a given political argument, and second, because lefties are far and away more fun to hang out with than conservatives. Both rationales are operative on this issue, but the first is especially salient. Let’s face it, a square looking dude in corporate drag is going to have more weight in congressional testimony than someone with a candy necklace, cargo pants, and dilated pupils. Sad but true. How about it ravers: are you willing to strike a Faustian bargain to save your weekends?
Addendum: Amptoons kindly links to “Circling Hawks” below, saying : “Curiously enough, some libertarians have been making almost identical arguments to those of the left, against invading Iraq.” Well, that’s the thing, it’s not so curious. Libertarians get lumped with the right, but historically we’re closer to liberals (though not socialists) because of roots in a shared classical liberal tradition. I don’t self-label as a “liberal” publicly, because that would cause confusion (“No, no, not really like Al Gore…”), but alone at night in a dark room, that’s how I think of myself.
