Our nation is awash in protests. Scarcely a day goes by when some group isn’t out on the streets screaming about something or other. The overwhelming majority of these folks are liberals who are convinced that our nation is in deep trouble.
Nonetheless, a majority of them are not protestors. They are agitators, or subversives, or revolutionaries. Mostly, however, they are emotional children throwing temper tantrums. They are essentially doing the equivalent of holding their breath or pounding their fists on the floor.
Although, most of these activists think of themselves as patriotic, they are not. They mistakenly believe that the American constitution confers the right, as well as the duty, to vent their frustrations on the public. As they misleadingly see it, they are saving the country by opposing tyranny.
As to their genuine rights, they are only partially correct. The Bill of Rights does cloak them with free speech. Meanwhile, the first amendment also encourages a “redress of grievances.” Even so, they are not engaged in the latter.
A genuine grievance is accompanied by a demand to correct a specific issue. Something is deemed unfair and/or broken and the protest is a petition designed to trigger remedial action. This complaint can take many forms, including verbal ultimatums and symbolic marches.
Whatever the shape, however, those at whom the protest is aimed are believed to be capable of resolving the problem. It is just a matter of convincing them to behave, as they ought. Once they understand what is necessary, they must take the required steps.
An ability to protest was built into our formative document because the founders had recently gone to war to uphold it. Before the Revolution began, they unsuccessfully petitioned King George and his minsters to fully rescind measures such as the Stamp Act or the Intolerable Acts.
One of their mantras was consequently “no taxation without representation.” Irrespective of the validity of this mandate, they identified what they hated and made plain that which would assuage their wrath. Only when this were not forthcoming did they escalate measures.
Other Americans have also engaged in genuine protests. The suffragettes come to mind. They were convinced that withholding the vote from women was unfair. Hence, they insisted upon a constitutional amendment to empower them and eventually got it.
So what do the current batch of “protestors” want? They have been asked this many times without providing a consistent response. The answer seems to depend on who is queried and at which venue.
In reality, for many of the protestors, going out into the streets and chanting appears to be an end in itself. Thus some find that shaking their fists at the sky enables them to release pent up anger. For others, these events are social gatherings during which they express solidarity with like-minded persons.
The unifying characteristic of these activists is nonetheless a conjoint hatred of Donald Trump. They despise his person and wish he had never been elected president. This, however, is not a protest; it is a visceral reaction. It is an emotive expression that lacks an action focus.
Were they to demand that the electoral process be amended in a particular direction; this might qualify as a protest. Or if they insisted upon specific legislation to undo something Trump did as president; this too might count. Yet that is not what they do.
While it sometimes appears that they support explicit goals, their subsequent behavior usually demonstrates otherwise. A case in point occurred when they demanded that Trump roll back the policy separating illegal migrant parents from their children. The fact that they were not satisfied after he did so revealed this was not their true objective.
No. They wanted to shut the president up. They intended to prevent him from taking any executive action whatsoever. Actually, they admit as much when they describe theirs as a “resistance” movement. The question is thus not what they want, but what they aim to stop—which is everything inconsistent with the liberal agenda.
Actually, they would like to hurt Trump and anyone associated with him. Indeed, they would love to inflict terrible pain; the more agony the better. But this is not a protest. Nor is it patriotic. To the contrary, it is a not very attractive personal vendetta. What is more, it endangers our democratic traditions.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment