right on
Steve Himmer of OnePotMeal on why marching is important:
The alternative to a march, after all, is an individual speaking on behalf of the collective, supposedly representing 'us'. If our entire complaint is that we cannot be represented by any individual voice, that approach is made impossible and dangerous. This is why I'm not a particularly enthusiastic fan of Michael Moore, for example: though I usually do agree with him, I vehemently object to his adoption of the tactics of the right as he claims to speak for 'all of us who didn't vote for Bush' and 'all Americans who oppose the war'. We may or may not agree with Moore or anyone else, but he's only ever speaking for himself.
And that's why we have to march, and chant, and sing, and scream, and act up and act out: because, to paraphrase a very wise mob of actors, 'we are all individuals; we must all speak for ourselves'. When we allow our voices to be subsumed or represented--either through voting exclusive of all other forms of protest (I am not, mind, advocating a foolish refusal to vote--voting is essential, but it is not the only tool at our disposal), we are allowing our voices and ourselves to be reduced to commodities, number traceable and trackable on charts and graphs and polls. When we march with individualized messages making up a larger, univocal whole, we are vitally--and with vitality--resisting that same commodification.
The idealism in that, the belief that peace is possible and that voices collective and individual do matter isn't the be-all end-all of tactics. But it's still important.