Marching on Washington is an American tradition that’s become so popular that individual marches can go unnoticed. Here’s how to avoid that.
What makes a successful march on Washington? Although most marches won’t change policy or trend on Twitter, organizers and participants say these are the elements of what passes for a successful one:
Marching on Washington sounds easy. But where do you rent an ambulance and hire paramedics? How many portable toilets does the National Park Service requires per 1,000 people? How long does it take to erect a stage? Where to buy 1,000 small American flags? Do you march on a weekday, when Congress is in session, or on the weekend, when more people can make it?
Planning a march is a complicated, expensive undertaking best left to those who’ve done it before. Many groups hire consultants to get the permits and handle details.
Without a crowd, no march can be considered a success. A big one is good; an unexpectedly big one is better. The problem is agreeing on a number. The Park Service stopped estimating crowd sizes after it was sued in 1995 by the organizers of the Million Man March, who claimed the march attracted more than four times the official guesstimate of 400,000.
Given the lack of precision, some consultants who stage marches tell their clients more or less what they want to hear. No point, they say, in bursting their bubble.
Not every march has a Martin Luther King, but there are always King wannabes. « Everyone wants the three minutes that will launch them to stardom, » says Donna Dees-Thomases, organizer of the Million Mom March in 2000. She says that by not speaking herself, it was easier to keep those who didn’t belong on the podium off it.
Organizers also must control what’s said and for how long. If a speaker drones on, managers must be quick to « play them off » with music, like at the Oscars.
The most compelling marches — and those that attract the most media attention —usually have an undercurrent of tension or unpredictability. The 1963 civil rights march occurred in a summer of demonstrations and civil disobedience across the South. Washington just before the march looked like an armed camp; the White House was prepared to authorize martial law in case of a riot. Those fears — unfounded, as it turned out — focused attention on the event. And, after the march concluded peacefully, it seemed all the more successful.
In contrast, a Vietnam War march arguably was too dramatic. In 1971, « Mayday Tribe » demonstrators, who tried to shut down the city by blocking commuter routes, alienated people they needed to help them stop the war.
It seems obvious — a march should have a single, clear theme. That’s easier said than done. The biggest marches are usually staged by coalitions of groups with similar but distinct goals. (The « March for Women’s Lives » in 2004 had 1,400 co-sponsors.) Sometimes, as in 1963, this produces an event that one group could not have staged itself. And sometimes, also as in ’63, it produces an unfocused agenda.
Who remembers, for instance, that the demands of that march included an increase in the minimum wage and self-government for the District of Columbia?
Sometimes marchers seek validation from the very government whose policies they’re protesting. The success of the 1963 march was due in part to federal officials’ cooperation and assistance — and President Kennedy’s willingness to meet its leaders after it was peacefully concluded.
