This weekend, thousands will gather in Washington, DC to protest the rapacious policies of our federal government. Those who go will be fired up, they will meet other activists, and they will probably make some news. It seems to be our civic duty to travel across country to join them there, if we can, and make our voices heard by bringing the most people possible.

This all sounds very good, but it doesn't mesh with past experiences mobilizing to DC. The anti-war movement enjoyed marching, and did a lot of it--I trekked from Michigan to demonstrate against the Iraq war, twice. Everyone was fired up, but we made little news, coverage was spun to focus on the worst of us, and in the long run, it's hard to see what we achieved. No wars were stopped, no change was imposed upon the political establishment, and perhaps most significantly, when the demonstrations dispersed, everything went back to the way it was. We went back to our lives, with nothing to show for it but the immediate reaction.

Large demonstrations are appealing for several reasons. For one thing, they're fun. Instead of a lonely door-to-door canvass where you must defend your beliefs to sometimes-hostile strangers (scary! until you try it), you're getting together with thousands of like-minded people. It's like planning a trip, or a party. They're also appealing because many of us were taught that great political achievements, notably in civil rights, were forged through mass demonstrations. But in politics, the most high-profile events are rarely the most significant.

Politicians, especially those in high offices like the U.S. House of Representatives and above, have the ability to know who votes, who does not vote, who always votes Democrat, who always votes Republican, who always votes Third Party/write-in, and who is in the tiny minority "in play"--those whose swing vote might actually decide an election. It's not an exact science, but the politicians can buy pretty good lists, they can develop the lists and make them better, and they can turn to other market research for even more information. Politicians respond only to the demands of key swing voters, and know that swing voters don't go to mass demonstrations.

The anti-war demonstrations failed and continue to fail because every politician knows that among the anti-war demonstrators there are no votes in play. The marches are full of non-voters, third-party voters, and reliable Democrats. Nobody in any of those masses was going to vote Republican if their Democrat leaders didn't do more to stop the war, and vice-versa for the anti-war conservatives: no libertarian was going to vote for Obama to stop McCain. Knowing that nobody would be sent home for voting for the latest $106 billion war supplemental, every Democrat did.

The politicians knew that none of the demonstrators' votes were in play. Entirely for that reason, the politicians knew that they could ignore the demonstrators with impunity. And so they did.

The reaction to the new wave of demonstrations from the new minority will mirror what we saw four years ago. Knowing that nobody in these anti-tax, anti-Obama, anti-socialism demonstrations is going to vote Democrat to punish a Republican member of Congress for, say, voting for a new farm regulation, no politician will see the demonstrations as a political threat and feel compelled to react.

Demonstrations feel powerful to the demonstrators within because everyone this huge field of energy created by the mass. But as legislative season moves on without change, and no plans were made locally to organize in election season, despair begins to grow and activists tend to either move closer to the political mainstream to feel comfortable (where they are happily lapped up by the parties for volunteer work), or turn against the entire political process, as this quote from Jesse Richard of tvnewslies.org illustrates in spades:

Get your crazy hats and creative signs and march to some empty buildings in DC? Ooooh you go get 'em! The members of Congress must be shaking in their boots... from all the laughter that is!...

Remember good old John Conyers; one of the few members of Congress who seemed to notice that this nation had a president most worthy of impeachment and decided to actually prepare articles of impeachment? Did anyone notice that this man worked his butt off to address the issues of high crimes committed by George W. Bush and his gang of PNAC thugs, but he only worked on this little project during the period when it could not possibly go anywhere; you know, when the Republican crime syndicate was controlling Congress. The moment the wonderful world saving Democrats took control of Congress, John Conyers' dog ate his homework. And guess what, the MoveOn sheep Democrats didn't blink an eye...

Your sheep herder activist groups keep you all very busy by marching you around and asking you to "tell Congress" this, or to "tell Congress" that. Save your energy. Stay home. Eat a carrot. Try to teach your dog to play chess. You'll get the same results. Don't waste your time or your money on these sheep herder groups. We live in an information age. We have telephones, cell phones, e-mail, web sites, faxes, text messages, bull horns, blimps, skywriters, posters, fortune cookies, and a billion other ways to get our message across. If we have to get in a bus and go down to Washington DC to yell at empty buildings with no media coverage in order to tell our representatives to represent us, the purpose of the trip should be to forcibly replace them with people who will represent us.

When demonstrations appear successful by turnout but to no effect, demonstrators become alienated from the political process, and abandon standard grassroots politics for radical methods. Notice how Richard dismisses lobbying Congress out of hand, as if it's no different from staging demonstrations? That error is the product of cynicism bred from failed effort.

This is not to say that demonstrations by themselves are always without value. At the state and local level, they can be great places to meet and interact with other activists. This is difficult to do with DC rallies, where even finding people in your state amongst the crowd can be difficult. In Michigan, the Campaign For Liberty worked with "Tea Party" organizers at a Lansing demonstration to promote the event, had a booth at the event where we gathered HR1207 signatures, had a coordinated, visible presence at the event, and returned with many new names for our email list. It was a very effective and meaningful use of time.

But going to DC from a distance is a large and unpleasant effort. You need to compensate for the time you must take off of work, off of your family (or you can bring them, just as much work) and drive hundreds of miles. You'll probably need a place to sleep for at least one night; you need an overnight bag. If you're organizing a bus, you need to raise busfare (from Detroit to DC and back for 55 people it was some $3,000) and volunteer organizers must plan how to keep people together (and deal with emergencies). When the DC event is organized by a large coalition and thousands show up, it can get chaotic, especially if you have friends to keep track of.

The political outcome will be the same whether or not you attend. The media coverage and punditry will be what they will be. Republican politicians will sympathize with the noble demonstrators; Democrats will label it a "right-wing" attack to firm up their opposition. The Washington March is a scripted event. The outcome is practically pre-determined; your presence is just one more tick on a tally. It may be a herd of cats, but it's still a herd.

Is it all worth it? Maybe if you live nearby, but if you're planning a trip, think how much energy is required. Say one coach bus, 55 people, spend two full days on a demonstration. 55 people with two full days could un-seat a mayor in a city of 100,000 if they spent that time canvassing their wards. In the sort of long, determined day you experience trekking to a demonstration, you work enough that for the effort you could have canvassed your entire precinct.

And for your work, you would have developed your voter list and your contact list for next time. More than a passing sense of achievement, but an asset you can put to use again and again. Instead of being a part of a herd, seen by all spectators as just another extra in the movie that is our political system, you would have made substantial progress in becoming a grassroots leader. You would have met people, in your very precinct, who feel the way you do. You would make friends, and you would be able to rally them to do join you in pressuring your politicians.

Politicians don't like pressure. What could make them happier than seeing droves of these potentially threatening grassroots leaders vacating their districts en masse to burn a tremendous amount of energy riling themselves up far our of the voters' sight, held up for the major media to spin as they choose?

Demonstrations can and do have value--C4L is sponsoring the DC rally, and John Tate will be speaking at it. They can be opportunities for us to meet and connect with large numbers of new people in an ideal environment. We can influence our friends for the better. The risk lies in making these events such a priority that better uses of time are sacrificed.

But there is a limit to the value of engaging "the choir," those who largely agree with us and are highly motivated to join a demonstration. It's engaging the middle margins that politicians fear. We deserve better than the political fate of the anti-war demonstrators, worked up into a mob and dispersed for later partisan assimilation. We can avoid this fate by rooting ourselves in our precincts and becoming grassroots leaders.

Unless you live in Maryland or Virginia, it may make more sense to dedicate yourselves to more local activism. If you can become a grassroots leader, and we as leaders work in a coordinated fashion, we will be able to manipulate our representatives in government. It does not matter if our representatives are not sincerely committed to Liberty--we can force them to vote for Liberty by making it the path of least resistance. That requires mobilization of voters, and the only way this essential task will be completed is if we start now.

DC is a miserable place. If you're further than 60 miles out, spend a day having a good time getting to know your neighbors, and building your own grassroots movement. Have you ever tried going door-to-door meeting your neighbors? It's intimidating at first but gets easy quickly with experience--most of your neighbors are really nice people. Canvassing your precinct might feel scarier than traveling to Washington DC, but it isn't.

The Revolution begins at home, and arrives in DC, not the other way around. You don't need to travel to DC to make your voice heard. If you want to really upset the political establishment, become a grassroots leader.