The Case for Civil Disobedience

Millions of disheartened people across the country and many organizations are trying to figure out how to respond to the recent election.  The common denominator for most seems to be anger.  Some want to protest.  Some seek to prevent Democrats in Congress from working with Trump in any way, regardless the worth of the project.                                                  

I would urge a different tack in dealing with the very painful and serious situation we face.  I would make the case for civil disobedience on a massive scale in the spirit of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.

The United States is a representative democracy.  Once the President and representatives are elected, the democratic tradition is for all to respect the vote and abide by majority rule.  Opposition both in the legislature and among the populace continues to play an important role in the formation of policy, but that opposition is expected to be civil and the laws obeyed.

But as Thomas Paine famously wrote, “These are the times that try men’s souls.”  In the history of our country, we have had various times that have tried men’s (and women’s) souls.  To name just a few:  the debate over slavery, the Depression, the McCarthy witch-hunts, the Vietnam War,  the assassinations of JFK, Martin Luther King, Jr, and Robert Kennedy, and now the simultaneous election of Donald Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress.

The public has reacted differently to these various crises.  The debate over slavery ultimately resulted in the Civil War, but most of these times have been met by the public with a spirit of resignation, broken only by scattered violent outbursts.

The civil rights movement and Vietnam War were however major exceptions for two basically different reasons.   The civil rights movement was a cause against such moral injustice that it ultimately became impossible for many black and white citizens to continue to react with resignation to racism and segregation.  

Under the leadership of Martin Luther King, Jr, that upwelling of spirit demanding justice became a force of dignified civil disobedience, a la Gandhi, and not violent demonstrations or riots.  And as in the case of Gandhi, MLK’s tactics worked, not in bringing about peace and harmony, but in bringing about laws that protected civil rights and made equal opportunity a priority.

With Vietnam, I don’t believe it was so much the immorality of the war or its futileness that brought about the protests, it was the direct impact that the war had on almost the entire population because of the draft.  And because the country was clearly not under attack or direct threat, unlike WWII, people felt free to oppose and protest.

But the Vietnam protests were not dignified peaceful protests in the spirit of Gandhi.  These were typically angry, ranting, often violent, protests.  And they did not bring about an end to the war.  Instead, I believe they helped Richard Nixon in his 1968 Presidential campaign.

Now we once more face a crisis because President-Elect Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress appear hell bent on striking out at various groups in a decidedly un-American fashion.  Whether it’s Muslims, undocumented Latinos, LGBT people, or women, fundamental human rights (not always legal ones) are being threatened.  Certainly the spirit of the words of our Declaration of Independence are being violated.  

And although Trump and elected Republicans have clearly not spoken out against Jews, the white supremacy groups that have been empowered by Trump’s hate-filled campaign rhetoric are unleashing violence against Jews, as evidenced by an increase in hate crimes this year reported by the FBI and the Southern Poverty Law Center.  Together with increased attacks against the groups that have been vilified by Trump, this poses a real threat to our civil order and any civilized concept of human conduct.

Given the scope of these threatened un-American and immoral acts, it is the civic responsibility of the populace to protest such actions through peaceful civil disobedience.  There is no need to wait till Trump moves forward with his plans; indeed, by then it would be too late.  The people must act now in order to show Trump and his Republican colleagues that their proposed actions and the actions of the more extremist of his supporters do not have the support of the American people … even those who voted for him out of desperation. 

A number of cities have already stated that they, and their police departments, will not cooperate with efforts by the Federal government to deport undocumented Latinos.  Many people have signed a pledge to register as Muslim, even though they are not, if Trump proceeds with a proposal to initiate a registry for all Muslims in the country.  These statements show the beginnings of a movement of civil disobedience. 

But to be effective, we need peaceful demonstrations of civil disobedience that are massive, held across the country in every state, and visibly inclusive of Americans of every faith, color, ethnicity, walk of life, gender, sexual orientation, and political party, as well as those who don’t subscribe to any party or religious faith.  Ideally they will include people who voted for Trump.  Only in this way is there a chance of convincing those in government to back off from their more extreme plans. 

This does not, however, mean total non-cooperation.  If Trump and the Republicans propose, for example, infrastructure projects that would benefit the American people, it would be irresponsible for Democrats in Congress to not support such measures.  Such support would not be incompatible with the spirit of civil disobedience.

This is a time for all 64,000,000 of us who voted for Hillary Clinton as well as the millions who voted for Trump out of economic despair and other reasons, not hatred, to come together and say to Trump, “Yes, rebuild the country’s infrastructure, create jobs, but be, as you pledged, the president of all Americans.  Respect human dignity and the equality of all.”

For this to happen will require extraordinary leadership, cooperation among organizations, and discipline.  The leadership and cooperation necessary is obvious.  The discipline is needed to keep these demonstrations from degenerating into anti-Trump, anti-Republican rants and to keep them peaceful.  The object here is to persuade, not beat up.  If it is not done properly, it should not be undertaken at all because the result will only make the people look weak and ineffective.

The choice is the people’s.   We can either sit silently by while our fellow citizens are singled out for legal attack by the government and physical attack by vigilante mobs or we can stand together with those under attack, peacefully, massively, in a show of civil disobedience against this violation of the American spirit and in support of government’s duty to respect the human dignity of all people.

When Ego Drives Politics, Can There Be Any Hope?

We can rant all we want about the insufferable and destructive attitude and policies of the Tea Party and its fellow travelers, but truth be told, virtually all politicians are sorely lacking.  

A politician should be first and foremost a public servant ... there should be no greater interest than to serve the interests of his or her constituents and the greater public good.  And where the greater public good conflicts with the interests of constituents, politicians should back the greater public good because the welfare of the nation should always take precedence over the narrow interests of a locality.

Why is it that there are no, or at best a handful, of politicians today, and for that matter in the past, who encompass this ideal?  The short answer is that all politicians, and indeed all people, are driven primarily by their ego ... which is to say the sum of their learned experience that forms how they view themselves and the world around them.  All people and all politicians are programmed by their upbringing and societal environment to look at things a certain way.  They cannot really do otherwise.

And what is the primary lesson that our culture teaches?  Is it that we must work for and if necessary sacrifice for the good of the community, or is it that we should insure first and foremost that #1, ourselves, is taken care of first.  During much of our history there was a balance between these two messages.  But over the past 30-40 years, it has become increasingly the latter.  Everything else is secondary, at best.

When one combines the self-centeredness of politicians with their programmed view of the world, the result is often disaster for the nation they are supposed to be serving.  In the past, while politicians and people have always been driven by ego, most people were exposed to a strong centrist tradition ... for example the news broadcasts of the three networks and most major newspapers ... and that formed the core of their political learned experience.  Thus they were able to see it in their interest to come together, not on all issues but with sufficient frequency, to serve the public good.

But as the power of corporations has increased in politics and as the attitude of the people has become more extreme, especially on the right due to the emergence of right-wing cable news and right-wing radio talk shows, there remains virtually no issue on which the two Parties can come together in the nation’s interest.  The result is the total dysfunction that we’ve been seeing in Congress.  The result is a growing fissure in our society.  The public good and the interests of those most vulnerable suffer.

Our political system is a mess.  The electoral system is a mess.  Our society is a mess.  Is there any hope out of this morass?  There is no hope so long as even well-meaning politicians and people seek to find answers within the system as it exists because within those constraints there can be no real change.  There is no hope without being willing to examine the concepts that lie at the very core of our culture.  For it is these concepts that make people what they are and make our system of government what it is.

What in the world am I talking about, you might ask.  It means going back to basics.  The core moral ethic behind all the world’s great religions is, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  Yet there are few people, even among those who profess themselves to be ultra-religious, who practice this core ethic.  

Why is that?   The bottom line reason is that most people are insecure, both individually and as groups.  If you are insecure, you only think of yourself, not others.  Yes, many people, groups, and nations may appear to have strong egos and are full of bluster and bravado, but deep within, people whether low or high are insecure.  That’s why those on top are typically so imperious.  It’s a mask.

And why are people so insecure, even those who have “made it” in our society and have so much?  The answer is that most people were not brought up with unconditional love and compassion.  

I know this sounds very new age, but don’t laugh.  We are all cursed with the learned experience that we have to be someone other than we are, we have to be better than we are, in order to be loved and respected.  We learn this in childhood from our parents and later from our peers and the broader culture that bombards us with messages that we need to be or do more.

If on the other hand, we were all brought up with the constancy of unconditional love and compassion ... and mind, this does not mean no criticism; it means that criticism is done with loving kindness; children need direction, but there’s a way to do it and a way not to do it ... then we would not be insecure as children and we would not grow up to be insecure adults.

This atmosphere of unconditional love and compassion would not be limited to the family, but would extend to all people in the community, in the country, indeed to all mankind because we would be taught that all of humanity is one.  We are all children of the same God (if there is one), we all suffer in the same way, we all are programmed by our learned experiences to act the way we do.  No one is innately bad or evil, but history has shown that it is surprisingly easy to teach people to be bad or evil.  With that knowledge we can have compassion and love for all, even those who seek to harm us.  

This new attitude does not mean that we would not defend ourselves, as a nation or individually.  But with this new attitude we would have a chance to break the cycle of hate with love.   To show those who are insecure that they have nothing to fear from us; that there is no need to be aggressive.  And with time, this new force of love would gain in strength, encompassing ever more people and nations.  Slowly but surely the aggressive traits that we have assumed are part of the human condition would be replaced by a more spiritual perspective based on unconditional love and compassion for ourselves and for all others.

Martin Luther King said, "Someone must have sense enough and religion enough to cut off the chain of hate and evil, and this can only be done through love."  To that I say, "Amen."