Missoula panel debates legitimacy and tactics of protest, referencing Abbie Hoffman, COINTELPRO and intelligence agencies

Panelists at a Missoula screening and discussion of a film about 1960s protest politics debated when and how public protest is legitimate, whether theatrical tactics can be effective, and the historical role of intelligence programs in suppressing dissent.

"Part of the reason Abbie Hoffman is so interesting, it seems to me, is that he did not enact the the power. He was not somber," said a panelist who identified himself as a scholar, describing Hoffman’s theatrical approach to protest. The same panelist said strategic and tactical questions about protest "are questions any protester has to deal with for himself or herself," and declined to set a universal rule for legitimacy.

Panelists described a common pattern: organizers often try working within political institutions first, and resort to street protest when they conclude the system "doesn't listen." One panelist who said he joined the American Indian Movement in 1973 described careful steps taken before street actions, including "building our organization and giving people a sense of their own power." Janet Roboto, identified in the discussion as a Native leader, contrasted local opportunities to protest with conditions on reservations: "Our folks are, beaten and ... they don't always have ... the ability to, protest like we do here."

The discussion ranged beyond tactics to historical consequences. When an audience member asked whether Hoffman’s death was suicide, the scholar panelist said opinions vary among Hoffman's associates but added, "Sad to say, I do believe Abby committed suicide," citing an earlier suicide attempt, letters, and a medication change before his death. The panelist also noted that other associates, such as Dave Dellinger and Bobby Seale, hold different views.

Speakers debated how to motivate broader public support. One panelist argued that movements must avoid being "boring" if they hope to mobilize more than "a very large minority," saying theatrical and creative tactics can draw attention while still being serious. Another panelist warned that government authority and enforcement tools are now more sophisticated than in the 1960s, requiring organizers to develop more systematic approaches; the Ruckus Society was cited as an example of modern organizer training.

The audience raised questions about intelligence agencies and government programs that targeted dissent. A panelist offered a blunt assessment of the CIA’s political role: "The CIA at its highest levels is nothing more than the American ruling class," and described COINTELPRO and other historical efforts as means to suppress dissent domestically. A different panelist pointed audience members to reporting and books on COINTELPRO for further reading.

The panel also addressed the relationship between 1960s protest culture and later social movements. Panelists said the counterculture and protest spirit helped spur movements for racial justice and women's rights, while acknowledging that activists of the time often reflected prevailing social biases. On that topic a panelist observed that although the era helped catalyze women's liberation, "what about individuals like Abby, womanizing? Absolutely."

The event was framed as a community conversation rather than a policymaking session: panelists invited questions from the audience, and no formal findings or actions were adopted. The discussion combined recollection, interpretation and disagreement about tactics, historical figures and the appropriate role of protest in a democratic society.