What I Saw: An Independent’s Take from the Women’s March on Washington
I had never attended a demonstration before. I had never marched for a cause. I was reluctant to engage in public display of protest — I’m an independent voter, and I’ve voted for Republicans in the past. But I decided to attend the Women’s March on Washington the day after Donald Trump’s inauguration. It was a decision I made early. It was a choice I made freely.
By the end of the day, the unconventional diversity I found at the march had transformed me into an active, conscientious citizen. Ironically, cynics and critics of the march from both sides of the political spectrum questioned the type of diversity I saw. For them, the march had either too much diversity or too little — demographic and ideological. These criticisms over diversity are fundamentally preoccupied with what the march was and who composed its participants. These cynics have forgotten to consider the most important aspect of the march — why did so many different Americans turn out?
I thought myself an unlikely participant in the Women’s March on Washington. I have voted for Democrats, Republicans, and other third parties in the past. I have lived in Texas and now Massachusetts, and I have even written in “Mickey Mouse” when there has only been one choice. I’m a devil’s advocate. But I enthusiastically jumped on this one.
Was the march about women? About abortion? About feminism? About civil rights? About Trump? I saw an enormous group of people who came together to rally for women for a diverse set of political and personal motives. Yet that strength attracted immediate criticism from observers. One conservative woman described the DC march as “intellectually dishonest” and “emotionally disingenuous” due in large part to the incoherent (i.e. diverse) messages put forward by its organizers and participants. The march organizers’ decision to exclude Pro-Life groups officially, while including other groups as sponsors, seemed to compound this issue.
But what I saw was neither dishonest nor disingenuous. This diversity of motives is a cause for celebration and action, not criticism and cynicism.
Along Independence Avenue, I marched with families of all types strolling hand in hand with their children. I saw fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, aunts and nieces. I noticed Catholic nuns walking side by side with transgender persons for social justice and respect. I saw scores of men, young and old, chanting “her body, her choice” of their own prompting.
On 14th Street, I overheard a 90-year old grandmother in a wheelchair say that she had previously voted Republicans until this election but never again. One conservative attendee lamented the lack of Republicans and even possible sympathetic Trump supporters who could have joined the crowds. He believed, the diverse range of views expressed by those at the march in word, song, and sign pushed such potential supporters away.
But I saw this Republican woman chant along with a slew of slogans expressing a wide range of opinions and positions. Most were clever, clear, and positive; some were hilariously irreverent, especially out of the mouth of a nonagenarian: “Share the Riches with the Bitches.” A sense of humor brought women together across multiple generations.
On the Mall with the US Capitol in view, I laughed with a young Hispanic couple from Wisconsin when I wrote “JOHN HANCOCK” ironically on a long banner of the Constitution for marchers to sign. They told me they came because they are the children of undocumented immigrants.
A little while later, a Muslim woman with a headscarf holding a sign with “This is an Intersectional Feminist Revolution” on it. She told me what intersectional feminism meant to her. Proud to be an American, she explained to those around her why she and the women in her family were at greater risk in the United States today than before.
As I moved closer to the rally point, I bumped into an old friend from college, an Indian-American Christian, whom I hadn’t seen in thirteen years. He told me that he decided to turn passive political participation into a display of support for protecting constitutional rights with his law school friends.
From the left, some criticized the march for being an overwhelmingly white women’s affair. They pointed out that the march’s largest demographic often failed to turn out to protest against the abuse and discrimination against African-Americans in law enforcement. The peaceful outcome of the march and the lack of any confrontation with police, some suggested, stemmed from white privilege.
But near the Washington Monument, I saw white, Hispanic, and Asian men and women chanting “Black Lives Matter.” A middle-aged African-American woman responded enthusiastically: “Thank you! Yes, we do!”
At the White House Ellipse, I saw marchers with signs from Massachusetts, Texas, California, and Hawaii expressing their support for science and awareness of climate change. As I maneuvered through the crowds, I encountered Democrats and Republicans, Libertarians and Greens, and independents like me.
I did not agree unequivocally with everything I heard. I encountered perspectives and comments at the march that contradicted each other. I encountered opinions and positions that I disagreed with. I don’t believe that “masculinity [is] a myth.” I think many women would agree with me that the idea of “females should rule the world alone” will not solve all of our current problems. But given the actions and words that had inspired me to march, I thought as I started home: “A change like that just might be worth a shot.”
Given the low voter turnout in the last election, a crucial success of the Women’s March was that it galvanized an entire cross-section of America. Whatever our differences, we came together to defend democratic norms. Encountering different points of view and disagreeing with those who hold them is a good thing. It is the beauty and beast of democracy. The belief in the importance of peaceful disagreement is a value that makes democracy strong. These disagreements are based on a common understanding of First Amendment rights. Our very ability to disagree civilly is a cornerstone of democracy. That is what the march meant to me.
Attempting to restrict the march to only include people who agreed with each other would have greatly shrunk its size and its influence. Would we have preferred that 50,000 people turned out for the march instead of 1,000,000 in DC? Or 500,000 instead of 3,000,000 worldwide? This is Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza’s argument. Our next step forward must be in collaboration, not cynical criticism. We must use diversity, in its broadest sense, as our strength.
As a historian by profession, I looked often to the past for examples to help me understand our present day. Nearly 54 years earlier, a quarter of a million people descended on the Mall in Washington for another march — one for jobs and freedom for African Americans. Indeed, the organizers of the earlier march agreed earlier that blacks and whites should march side by side. Though the large majority of the marchers were African Americans, almost a quarter who attended were white. Christians and communists, Jews and hippies attended. Many of the participants were able to hear Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I have a Dream…” speech as it unfolded spontaneously and organically.
The organizers did not mail out invitations. They did not have the benefit of the internet or Twitter to advertise the exact route of the march. There was no Facebook for marchers to post updates and photos to the rest of the world. Dr. King’s inspirational speech rallied those who shared this belief even if they had not experienced discrimination or inequality. As Simon Sinek has pointed out, what that march and Dr. King offered this group was a belief not about white or black America but a shared one for all regardless of skin color or any other difference.
What I saw reminded me why I and so many others came out for the Women’s March. It is why I will come out for the March for Science. It is why I came out to protest the recent Executive Order banning travel from those from seven predominantly Muslim countries. It will be the reason why I will march and protest any attempts to infringe on our civil rights on the basis of such differences. Much as I have heeded George Washington’s warning about avoiding partisan politics, I will follow Barack Obama’s example to speak up and act when “our core values are at stake.” I march for a better America for everyone around the world precisely because of our differences and our ability to defend them. I march for better leaders to make that shared vision a reality for all. And I will keep marching until we get there.
