Mike Pence and the Delicate Art of Protest.
blog.timesunion.com
HOFFMAN FILES
Mike Pence and the delicate art of protest.
By Rob Hoffman on May 25, 2017 at 5:30 AM
3
Is there a right that is more fundamental to being an American than the right to peaceably assemble? Its prominence in the Bill of Rights is there for all to see. It’s tucked in neatly along with all of our other freedom of expression rights. The actual wording goes like this:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
During wartime, the Supreme Court has at times attempted to curb the rights of the American people. However, the overall approach of the Supreme Court throughout U.S. history has been to find on the side of those who were seeking to invoke their freedom of expression rights.
In fact, more often than not, freedom of expression is one of the few constitutional issues that brings together our Liberal as well as our Conservative justices. Even groups as heinous and controversial as the American Nazi Party, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Westboro Baptist Church (They are sometimes better known as “G_d Hates F_g’s) have had their rights to protest and assemble upheld by the United States’ Supreme Court. When Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority decision in the Westboro Babtist Church case (Snyder vs. Phelps) he basically admitted how personally repulsed he was by what the church was doing. They would show up at military funerals and mock the family, friends, and other mourners of the deceased since they died defending a nation that allows gays and lesbians to live and have equality. (Good luck trolling for the logic in that one.) However, despite his personal feelings in the case, he reiterated something that has been said many times by the Supreme Court of the United States in several different cases. “Hate Speech,” is protected free speech.
Image result for fred phelps getty images
I get the feeling that Reverend Fred Phelps was not one of those forgiving and nurturing men of faith that most church goers have come to expect. However, he was an effective lawyer, and he argued successfully that his group had the right to protest and mock military funerals. He passed away in 2014 at the age of 84, or 84 years too late. (Getty Images)
It would appear that like every other issue in our society today, the idea of protest has also become a partisan debate where both sides of the political spectrum feel completely justified in exercising that right, but object to both the methods and timing of the other side’s desire to bring attention to their cause.
Recently, the debate over the dos and don’ts regarding protest came to a head at Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana. Vice President Mike Pence, the former governor of Indiana, was asked by the university to give the commencement speech. During the ceremony as the vice president was getting up to give his speech, several dozen students quietly rose from their seats and proceeded to file out of Notre Dame Stadium. Pence praised the university for being a “vanguard of freedom of expression and the free exchange of ideas.” The students did nothing illegal, they were simply making a statement regarding Pence’s stance on the rights of people in the LGBT community, amongst some of his other ideas and political stances which some consider a bit “Draconian.”
Image result for mike pence speaking at notre dame you tube
Mike Pence, the star of another “Fox News Alert.” (You Tube)
I decided to “share” the story about the students walking out on Pence on Facebook, and I stated that while I’m generally opposed to anything and everything that Mike Pence stands for and supports, I wasn’t sure that this was the right venue for students to protest his appearance. I supported their right to protest of course, but I just wasn’t sure that this was an effective use of the concept of resistance.
I believe that when weighing the efficacy of any form of dissent or disobedience, you have to somehow figure out whether the form of protest is so controversial or disruptive, that the message that the group seeks to deliver may be lost due to their methods, particularly if their actions turn out to be especially destructive. My question regarding the walkout on Pence basically boiled down to this; Was the graduation ceremony the right venue for making a statement against the beliefs and policies of the vice president?
Image result for black lives matter protest you tube
The most controversial protest movement in America today is the one involving the “Black Lives Matter” movement. While most of these protests have been peaceful, agitators have attached themselves to some of these protests causing violence to break out, and leading many to label the movement as criminal and destructive. This has caused the original mission of the movement to have gotten lost over time. (You Tube)
Was it disrespectful for these Notre Dame graduates to walk out on the vice president, or was it truly the ultimate sign of respect for our democratic institutions to take advantage of the rights that were provided for us so many years ago? Many on Facebook who chose to comment on my posting agreed that it was the wrong venue. However, several went much further calling the student protesters “spoiled,” “babies,” and “snowflakes.” (Whatever that is?) Others disagreed with me vigorously, saying that this was well within their rights as Americans, and that the bigoted and narrow-minded positions carved out by Pence over his political career made it almost mandatory that anybody with a conscious would have been compelled to walk out on the vice president.
I began to find myself in the unfathomable position of defending of all people, Mike Pence, a man who I will allow to explain for himself why I find him so objectionable:
(I wonder if Trump knows this? You Tube)
I tried to argue, perhaps to convince myself, that out of respect for the office of the vice president, Liberals like myself should take the higher moral ground, and allow those we disagree with to say their piece, or even their peace. Sure there will be times to resist, and resist we should, but shouldn’t the vice president of the United States, a guest of the university, be able to give his speech without the event being politicized? After all, when Pence and his family went to see Hamilton on Broadway, they were lectured by the cast. Shouldn’t that tongue lashing, courtesy of the “Great White Way” have been sufficient in getting him to see the light? (The same thing happened to myself and my family at Proctor’s Theater in Schenectady when we went to see Fiddler on the Roof a few years ago, and I stood up and began doing the “J-E-T-S” cheer after the Jets defeated the Colts in the playoffs, but I suppose I had that coming.)
Protests and their timing have been a point of debate through many of the more famous acts of civil disobedience in recent history. No lesser figure than Mohandas Gandhi faced blistering criticism when he refused to support the British against Nazi Germany in World War Two. Some even labeled Gandhi an anti-Semite over his stance. He was also accused of being naive over the idea that the Nazi’s could be resisted in a non-violent fashion, as well as believing that a British defeat would be advantageous for the Indian populace.
Image result for mohandas gandhi getty images
Gandhi is remembered practically as a saint, but during his life he was hated by many including some of the most prominent leaders of the United Kingdom, especially Winston Churchill who referred to Gandhi as a “half-naked, seditious fakir.” However, it’s possible that the portly Churchill was simply jealous of Gandhi’s “six-pack” abs. (Getty Images)
Closer to home here in the United States, we celebrate the birthday of our own “sainted” leader of one of the great civil rights movements of all time, Martin Luther King Jr. King is viewed by people of all races, creeds, and ethnicities as one of the most admirable figures in U.S. history. However, King faced considerable animosity during his time, and not just from those who self-identified as “KKK.”
King was maligned and mistrusted by a source no less influential than the legendary Director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover. (The original “Q” when it came to gender identification.) Hoover bugged King’s motel rooms while he was on the road, and discovered his multiple affairs with a variety of women. Hoover was also convinced that King was a Communist, however, I don’t believe any of the listening devices he installed in King’s motel rooms ever revealed King espousing his communist philosophy in between his sexual trysts.
(Martin Luther King Jr. saw many former sympathizers and supporters turn on him viciously when he became one of the earliest critics of the nation’s policies in Vietnam. Many considered him a traitor, and unpatriotic. You Tube)
When King publicly turned on the Vietnam War in 1967, pointing out how the war was disproportionately affecting African-Americans, as well as poor whites, he came under blistering criticism. Many whites who had been supportive of King, and his non-violent methods, now felt that he was “ungrateful,” in pointing out the immorality of the war that seemed to go on without end. King had not changed methods, just message, and for many that was a breaking point. Protest that doesn’t jibe with out world view, irks us as bothersome, and disruptive, even when practiced by legendary figures such as King or Gandhi.
For many, protest is seen as little more than an inconvenience. Is there really a “good time” to publicly organize and voice one’s displeasure? The election of Donald Trump has spurred what seem to be weekly protests against his personal behavior, and public policy positions. Women, environmentalists, as well as advocates for the poor have taken to the streets to oppose the president and his policies. Many however see this as an example of a nation that has become spoiled. We take to the streets when we don’t get what we want. We can neither handle or acknowledge that the opposition side has won, and that elections have consequences. How dare people disrespect their elected officials, and what right does Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have to filibuster and defeat the duly elected president’s agenda, along with the majorities that were elected in both houses of Congress by the American people?
Image result for women’s march protesting trump getty images
Women took to the streets shortly after Donald Trump had been inaugurated, and in record crowds all across the nation, in blue states as well as red ones. Trump could not have been pleased to see bigger crowds protesting him compared to those who came out for his inauguration, and he must have been pining for the days when he could have grabbed these women by their “hats.” (New York Times)
I would like to take the high road. I want to believe that we are better as a nation if we can sit down and listen to each other. I want to believe that even a “neo-Nazi” like Ann Coulter has the right to speak at a university, and that protests should be peaceful and challenging, but not disruptive to the point where she is denied her opportunity to be heard. Yes, I want to believe that.
However, I think back to when Obama was president, particularly back in 2009-10, when the economy was in shambles, and the nation was desperate, and people wouldn’t even give him a chance. When Mitch McConnell said his job was to defeat Obama, not work with him to help the nation get out of the Great Recession. I think of the disruptive “Tea Party” protests, along with the intense lobbying against gun control, as well as the often violent protests against abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood, and I think to myself, “Why do I have to take the high road? It’s obvious I’m going to be the only person driving on that highway!”
Image result for tea party protesters getty images
I know I’m getting forgetful in my old age, but I don’t recall anybody from the “right” complaining about these offensive protests against Obama? (Getty Images)
I believe that perhaps I may have been wrong about the protest against Mike Pence. Protest should be messy, and a little bit inconvenient, but never violent. We are Americans, and we are not compelled to sit silently in the face of any position we feel is wrong or demeaning. Respect is a two-way street, and many who are calling out the protests of the past five months, sat suspiciously silent back in 2009-10. Nothing is more vital in a free society then protecting the right to unpopular free speech. Popular free speech doesn’t need protection. Nobody questions you when you say, “Support the troops,” or “The police are always in the right.” But heaven help those who say, “The war is wrong,” or “Sometimes police use excessive force.” The right to say these unpopular statements need to be defended if we are to maintain our “exceptionalism.”
So I guess what I’m saying is, “Screw you Mike Pence!” (Respectfully)