Your Disobedient Servant
I saw some pundits on TV talking about the Occupy Wall Street movement, and one of them said civil disobedience (whether or not that's what the movement is doing) was what America is all about.
Really? I'm not denying we've got a tradition of civil disobedience, but is that what defines America? Sure, Thoreau famously wrote about it (and Emerson dealt with it, too), but I'm not sure that's how the Founding Fathers wanted it (in general).
I think they saw the essence of the country as a place where the people can deal legally with their problems and so don't need to resort to breaking the law. That we allow our citizens to speak, to vote, to amend the Constitution, to petition government for redress of grievances. We also protect the basic freedoms of the minority. And people can even leave--their city, state or country--if they're not happy.
The essence of Thoreau's argument, remember, was anti-democratic. That governments can't be trusted and one's conscience should trump the will of the majority. These are understandable arguments, but (as Socrates argued) shouldn't a citizen have enough allegiance to the place he lives that he should bow to its rules? You may not like them, but then it's your job to try to win over others to your side, not to refuse to follow them.
The greater the perceived wrong, the tougher the argument against civil disobedience. Worse, if your voice is being systematically shut out, then you have no chance to have your problems dealt with. But isn't that the point of the Constitution, and the many pro-democracy amendments that followed? To make sure all had a voice?
So when people commit civil disobedience--break the law--aren't they just sore losers? They lost the argument and now they don't want to play the game any more. Hey, we all oppose a lot of things the the government does, but we recognize we often don't get our way.
Those who support civil disobedience should at least admit that part of it is recognizing you have to pay the price. The idea that, even though you believe you're right, you have to accept the punishment given to you. (Which is why no one should say civil disobedience, because it's a good thing, shouldn't be punished.)
I guess the real test regarding how you feel about civil disobedience is what you say about people who practice it on behalf of something you despise. Let's say you strongly back unions, so you support a protest designed to block politicians who are about to cut state pensions. Not that impressive. But if you support the right to an abortion, then see protestors blocking the way into a clinic, would you then say of such people "that's what America's about"?
posted by LAGuy @ 12:02 AM
7 Comments:
From Gandhi:
"If our rulers are doing what in their opinion is wrong, and we feel it is our duty to let them hear our advice even though it may be considered sedition, I urge you to speak sedition-but at your peril, you must be prepared to suffer the consequences. And, when you are ready to suffer the consequences and not hit below the belt, then I think you will have made good your right to have your advice heard even by the Government."
The key to civil disobedience is to submit to punishment for violation of a law perceived to be unjust. There is no point to it if the routine violation of the law draws no punishment - it just means that everyone has passively agreed that the law will not be enforced and it can be allowed to fade into disuse.
Now, if the majority believe that the law is just, or that the punishment is appropriate, then civil disobedience will also fail. That is the risk the protester takes.
I agree the essence of civil disobedience is to be willing to pay the price. Otherwise, it's just moral grandstanding where nothing is at stake.
Isn't the discussion of civil disobedience somewhat beside the point? The Occupy Wall Street protesters (the American Fall following the Arab Spring?) are not engaging in trying to change laws or at least thats not the main impetus- its about selling the idea that things stink and if enough people make a ruckus, maybe things will change - not that different from the Tea Party or any other group seeking to sow disaffection. Actually OWS is little murky on what it stands for and the murkier it stays, the more popular it will stay. These groups are far more interested in influencing opinion and stirring the pot than in adhering to some philosophical Gandhian principle- not that that can't be important- its just very important right here, right now.
code word-weedlist
I wasn't discussing the OWS people in particular, they were just the subject when someone on TV made that comment about civil disobedience. And I just wondered if he said that because he felt that way about civil disobedience, or just liked their message (whatever that is). The civil rights struggle gave civil disobedience a good name in this country (just as it gave states' rights a bad name). But we should try to remember what it means, and not just support or oppose something because of some particular message it's tied to.
Over the years I have developed a general rule which is that if the majority is usually right. This is not an idea everyone embraces, especially among radicals. But it is still true. We should respect the majority because it is usually right. But it is not always right. And when it is not, it is sometimes horribly wrong. Therefore there is a need for civil disobedience. I think the founders had similar ideas.
The founders believed that the current situation with England was untenable. They also knew the value of the rule of law and wanted to construct a law that was reflected the wisdom of the people but also made provision for problems. So I do think at some level civil disobedience is a part of our country as the founders did seem to foresee the need of it. They certainly were very aware of its consequences.
I believe the Founders attitude was that if you are not being represented and can't be heard, then you can take the highly unusual move of flouting the law. But when Shays Rebellion happened, they put together a Constitution that made sure the central government could put down insurrection. And I don't have to tell you how far Lincoln went in that direction.
The Founders (who had plenty of trouble with too much direct democracy, by the way) felt, for the most part, that as long as you can be heard, that's enough. You make your argument and if it loses, you bow to the majority and wait for another day.
You write: "We should respect the majority because it is usually right. But it is not always right. And when it is not, it is sometimes horribly wrong. Therefore there is a need for civil disobedience."
I don't agree. First, I'm not sure if the majority is usually right, but I understand they should get their way (as long as minority rights are respected) because fighting the majority will make for a lousy place to live. But I have no idea how you can tell if they're horribly wrong or not. There's hardly a move the majority makes that some minority doesn't strongly disagree with. If they felt, then, they should start breaking the law, then civil disobedience would be the norm. So much for rule of law.
Post a Comment
<< Home