Random Reminders On Civil Disobedience

No, this is not an analysis of Thoreau’s essay in Walden. Just some quick random thoughts on that venerable protest strategy.

• Thoreau went to jail.

• Mahatma Gandhi went to jail (and worse).

• Rosa Parks went to jail.

• Martin Luther King, Jr. went to jail. 

If you want to join that admirable group and practice civil disobedience, you have my respect and I support your right to do so, whether or not I agree with your POV or stance. You are joining in an honorable tradition – but only if you don’t whine if/when you face the consequences of your actions.

You don’t get to claim civil disobedience AND immunity from the ramifications of your actions. The above-named historical heroes all believed they were on the side of the angels, but, and this is key, they were willing to pay the price of standing (or sitting, in the case of Parks) on the “wrong” side of authority in order to challenge the injustice they saw around them. These masters of civil disobedience actually invited arrest to bring their cause front and center, rather than use cowardly intimidation tactics to avoid any consequence.

You want to grab your gun and march, that is your right. I don’t care what name you want to give your cause or your actions, but you can’t claim civil disobedience. That phrase is reserved for the courageous men and women who stand up for their beliefs without trying to avoid the consequences of their actions.

While it shouldn’t be necessary, let me point out that Thoreau, Gandhi, Parks, & King were non-violent protesters, not gun-toting rowdies. Armed protest threatening violence isn’t civil disobedience, it’s rebellion and insurrection and carries the potential of far more severe repercussions than jail. We had one civil war; it didn’t work out so well for the instigators – and, sadly, the defenders of the country and Constitution who shared the horror of that conflict also paid a steep price. Ironic that so many of the participants are waving flags of history’s losers (Swastikas, Stars & Bars) as they protest.

Spirit of '76

There are some advantages to growing older (not the least of which is it beats the alternative), assuming you can remember them.

Remembering the past, for example. I’ve been involuntarily reminded recently (and frequently) of an attitude that prevailed for a while in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s as the nation was roiled by protests over the ill-fated Vietnam War and civil rights. Car bumper stickers sprouted like modern-day memes. “America, Love it or Leave it” is the one that comes to mind in light of modern day events. That ugly assumption, that if you have the temerity to criticize your country you must hate it, is making a resurgence. News commentators, social media posts and more are implying, if not outright yelling, that POV.

Why must everything be a zero-sum game, an all or nothing proposal, with both poles screeching at their opposites, and, worst of all, dismissing any valid points that get lost in the halitosis of the shouting? And what is MORE American, especially on the day celebrating our independence, than protesting? Tea Party anyone?

On this 4^thof July, before getting into snark, meme posting, or finger pointing, let’s apply the stink test to our thinking. Would I react the same way if the action or opinion came from my “team?” 

I saw a great t-shirt at the Pride Parade in St. Louis Sunday: “Be careful who you hate; it might be someone you love.” I think that applies on multiple levels.

One of These Things is Not Like the Others

Memes, almost by  definition, are simplistic and misleading.

In the wake of a restaurant’s request to Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders that she leave, (false) comparative memes have popped up: the (CO) baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding or the (WA) florist who refused another couple flowers; even more of a stretch, the refusal of restaurants to serve blacks prior to passage of the Civil Rights Act.

Here’s the difference. Refusing to serve or do business with any individual is always that business owner’s right (it must be nice to be able to turn away business). But to do it based on the accident of a person’s birth, by virtue of race or sexual orientation, is discrimination by definition because it is not a decision about an individual, but a group, and not based on the actions (or even attitudes) of a particular person.

Ms. Sanders chooses to work for an administration that many people find abhorrent. This is her choice, as is the business owner’s (and its employees) to protest the policies of the Trump White House, a White House of which she is the face (at least as much as President Trump is willing to share the limelight for anything). That choice triggered the business owner’s choice.

Whether that turns out to be a sound economic decision or not remains to be seen. This particular protest, and others it may inspire, strike me as meaningless challenges that will accomplish nothing except to further fuel the outrage and divisions that are already growing the chasm between citizens. Unless the energy of outrage can be channeled into organized action, it is really little more than self-gratification. So feel free to vent your own outrage with prank calls, fake reviews, etc. if you have nothing better to do with your time. For me, I have now spent more time on this event than it probably deserves.

As counterproductive as the owner’s action may turn out to be, it does not compare to a civil rights violation, as were the segregation laws and policies and discrimination against gays. Business owners can refuse service to any individual for virtually any reason (including “You were mean to me in high school!”), but only as long as it is not based on that individual’s membership in a protected class of people. By the way, except for the District of Columbia, party affiliation is not protected.*

* I do not dispute for a minute that similar outrage (and quite possibly charges of racism) would have been generated in the opposite direction had a member of President Obama’s staff been treated in like manner. That, too, would have been counterproductive. Hypocrisy is a two-way street with both red and blue cars in more or less equal numbers. Secretary Sanders deserves credit for handling herself with grace and class under the circumstances. More than can be said about her boss's tweet rant reaction.