The Enclosed Public: Protest and Premonitions at the Vice-Presidential Debate in St. Louis

Over one hundred workers, activists, students, veterans and families gathered in Northmoor park near campus to voice alternatives to the candidates' discussion of abstract policy issues. Activist groups Instead of War, Code Pink, and Veterans for Peace organized the protest to highlight the narrow scope of the debate, and to expose the carefully mediated lack of public access to discussions of public policy.

Over the course of the week, officials quickly transformed a public area to a private one, limiting access to the immediate area surrounding campus. The territory around Washington University became a carefully guarded occupied zone. Adjacent streets were closed to pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Police on bicycles patrolled checkpoints enclosed by barricades.

The “official” space for demonstrations, what the university dubbed the “public viewing area”, was nothing more than the university's intramural fields, an enclosed area. Compliant groups could schedule times for rallies, insofar as they followed a list of rules and regulations and passed through a security checkpoint (an image of these rules and regulations can be found on this page). Demonstrators were searched upon entrance, and had roughly twenty minutes apiece to assemble.

Many considered a public viewing area surrounded by fences contrary to open debate, and a curtailment of civil liberties.

“What happens at a public viewing area?” asked one speaker at the Northmoor rally, “Is the public viewed? Does the public view each other? It isn't even called a protest pen anymore.”

Across the street and outside the fences, demonstrators at the rally in Northmoor park argued all the barricades and street closures reflect something more.

“We do not need to be brutalized, oppressed, and shut in” Kalimu Endesha of the Coalition Against Police Crimes and Oppression, said.

In different ways, the five speakers at the rally described how corporate and government control of society has disempowered the public. Stories ranged from the lack of transparency in the military, corporate control of healthcare, alienation from the economy, state control of St. Louis public schools, and the lack of accountability stemming from police brutality cases.

Beforehand, the groups submitted the names of these speakers to the presidential debate commission so that the questions could be included in the debate. Presidential debate commission members refused to include the questions in the broadcast. Instead, an unknowing audience watched on as the candidates spoke about a carefully planned series of topics. At 5:30 P.M., the speakers began.

First, a Ms. Turner from St. Louis told her story about how the failing economy has effected her life. “What I wanna know is, where are the people who are going to bail the middle class and the poor people out of foreclosure? Instead of giving that $700 million to all the big banks, they could of given half of that to us to bail us out.” After Ms. Turner lost her job, the payments on her mortgage increased so much that she has been unable to keep up on the payments. As she struggles to find a job that will pay her other bills, she is unable to find debt relief that could save her home. She questioned why the government has moved so quickly to bail out those responsible for the crisis, while she has struggled to find even minimum assistance.

Second, Melanie Houst described the difficulties she experienced securing adequate health care. Ms. Houst waited until the last possible moment because she could not afford more than the basic insurance that required co-pays beyond her means. Had she been covered, earlier preventative visits could have stopped the growth of cancer that has now progressed to stage four. Now, because of her preexisting condition, securing another policy to pay for her treatments has been impossible. Ms. Houst questions the speed government officials have funded billions for the occupation of Iraq, but have been reluctant to ensure proper care for sick people.

Third, Dr. Tom Johnson told the story of the lack of transparency and accountability surrounding the military cover up of his daughter's rape and murder while she was serving in Iraq. The military sent the body of Pvt. 1st Class LaVena Johnson's body home in July 2005, saying the cause of her death was suicide. However, after questioning the causes of damage to Dr. Johnson's daughter's body, he began an investigation into her death. Three years later, Dr. Johnson uncovered documented proof that his daughter was beaten, raped, and murdered. Although the military, corporate reporters, and congress refuse to admit any abuse against his daughter or other women in the military, Dr. Johnson continues to fight for the truth.

Fourth, Andrew Wimmer, who was ejected from a recent Public St. Louis school board meeting for asking a question that was not pre-approved, spoke on behalf of an elected school board member about the forceful exclusion of community members from participating in public eduction decisions in St. Louis. St. Louis Public Schools, which lost its accreditation in March 2007 amidst protests by students and parents, is run by a State Appointed Board that was nominated by Missouri governmental officials, not chosen by public election. Because this board has increasingly moved towards opacity in dealing with public education in St. Louis, Mr. Wimmer urged the community to fight to reclaim the public spaces we are entitled to control.

Lastly, Kalima Endesha of the Coalition Against Police Crimes and Oppression spoke to highlight the targeting of social justice movements in St. Louis. He connected police repression to larger systems of oppression in the United States, something completely lacking in both parties platforms. Mr Endesha spoke in solidarity with all struggles.

After the speakers finished, demonstrators approached the barricades and police restricting access to Washington University's campus.

“What we have is public permission to enter the debates...we ask you to come forward and remove these barricades, so that Dr. Johnson and Maime Turner can enter this debate and take real issues of substance in there,” Bill Ramsey, an organizer with Instead of War, said through a megaphone to the police. “We'll wait.”

Officials and the police were unresponsive to the request.

Despite the exclusion, protesters insisted that these voices still represent the experiences of millions more in this country who are not reaping profits via defense contracts and the occupation of Iraq, the fleecing of the U.S. corporate health care system, or from the plundering of the global economy.

Just weeks after repression of demonstrations and mass detentions in Denver and in St. Paul during the republican and democratic conventions, it seems "public debate" has become a dangerous issue for both parties. Although the sequestering of public space is so commonplace now that many take it for granted, it is important to question the purpose of the debate officials' actions.

The enclosures we face do not stop at barricades or enclosed streets, but rather like the speakers' stories imply, they cut us off from building a more just society. As barriers persist, it becomes our responsibility to mobilize towards action.

MP3 audio files of each speaker can be downloaded from this page. Images are also available.