Civil Disobedience and Respect for the Law

I've often said that one of the most important aspects of living in a democratic republic is learning to lose with dignity. That is, not every vote or every law will go your way, but there has to be faith that the system can and will work to overturn unreasonable laws over time. Losing with dignity doesn't mean giving up, but it does mean respecting the rule of law that comes with decisions that you don't agree with.

What the heck am I talking about?

I believe that the separation clause has been taken to unreasonable extremes, but when a judge is ordered by a higher court to remove Ten Commandments from his courthouse, I think that he has the obligation to do so. If he can't uphold the law as it is currently written, then he needs to not be a judge. I don't cheer former Chief Justice Roy Moore, I am disappointed that he couldn't carry his side in a dignified manner befitting a judge.

I believe that abortion is wrong. I'll always speak against it and vote against it, and I'll argue that we do legislate morality when it comes to harming others. Abortion is legal (within certain parameters). So I don't cheer on people who mercilessly harass abortion providers or their patients. I don't approve of violating the privacy of those people, either, in hopes of shaming them into changing their professions.

I support legalization of gay marriage, or, at least, gay civil unions. Gay marriage, where not recognized, is still not a legal entity. I don't give a cheer for the officials of San Francisco when it subverts the rule of law by issuing marriage certificates to same sex couples in defiance of California state law.

The argument for any one of these things rests in a judgment of the actors as being righteous in their cause. The funny thing is that each of them is essentially the same thing: an act of civil disobedience. Without civil disobedience, would women have the vote and would minorities have equal rights?

Civil disobedience, though, is a decision made by the actor to subvert the law. If one instance of disobedience (say, sitting in a "whites only" restaurant to protest inequality) is acceptable to us, then we are signaling our agreement with actor. If another act of disobedience is unacceptable (say, a judge rolling a stature commemorating the ten commandments into a courthouse), then we are signaling our disagreement. But the decision is still made on an individual basis in response to some perceived or real inequality.

So, in what way is the abortion, civil rights, drug rights, anti-tax, or gay marriage protester different from any of the others? The difference (assuming that they are all non-violent protesters) is in your perception of their cause. If you disagree, then they are cranks and fools. If you agree, then they are strong individuals standing up for what is right and good.

Which is why I generally say that it is important to work within the system to change the system. We have elections where we can change our representatives, we have the opportunity to introduce laws that change the way our government works, and we have methods to signal our dissatisfaction (or happiness) with the acts of our officials. We even have the opportunity to run for office at every level of the government. We are anything but powerless in American politics.

But then there are those changes that have come about from civil disobedience that can't be ignored. Acts of civil disobedience can be powerful tools for change in society. By encouraging the rest of us to consider issues (like gay marriage), by pointing out the inequity and the unreasonableness of our laws, it often spurs Americans to change their view of that issue. Henry David Thoreau, in his tract "Civil Disobedience", is really the guiding light for activists.

But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at one no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.

The danger, unrecognized by the passionate protester, though, is that they are working just as hard to impose their will on the rest of us. They are discounting the views of their opponents in the assumption that they know better, that they are more righteous, and that, once things have changed, we'll all agree it was for the best.

In my most optimistic moments, I believe that our government and society are somewhat self-correcting. When true injustice is brought before us, the tendency is to address the issue positively. It isn't instantaneous, remedies are often imperfect, but the trend is toward equity and good social change.

So, when is civil disobedience a good thing? The only way to judge is by time, I suppose. If, looking back ten or fifteen years, the act brought changes that we believe are good, then the act was good. Otherwise it was simply the act of a misguided soul.

As a conservative, I do my best to respect laws. Even ones I don't agree with. Secretly, though, I also respect those people who took stands against the tyranny of unjust laws, and I'm glad that they stood up when others wouldn't. I admire them and thank them for their efforts.

Except for the ones that are utter cranks, who stand for causes that are foolish, and who have no freakin' respect for the rule of law.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go protest unjust speed limits with a little civil disobedience of my own.

Posted by zombyboy at February 13, 2004 10:26 AM | TrackBack