“Surely”, people say, “you have to respect the President ! If not the man then at least the office. And you have to respect the political process. And you certainly have to respect the law, even if you don’t agree with it. Otherwise it would just be chaos.” The current situation in America is testing those beliefs to the limit.
Record numbers of Americans are already finding ways to resist the least qualified and most divisive US President of modern times and his extreme right-wing government. Far more people turned out to demonstrate against Trump on his inauguration day than showed up to offer support. Record numbers of demonstrators are flooding airports to protest his harmful and illogical executive order on immigration. In countries around the world people of all races and nationalities are taking to the streets to demonstrate against Trump and his hard-right administration. And it’s just starting.
Is it right to resist a bad President ? Yes. Regardless of pious platitudes and wishful thinking, the office of the President does not float neutrally above the political fray. It is highly politicized and partisan. If the record and actions of a President make him unfit to occupy that office, and some of his policies are not just morally wrong but damaging to the well-being of Americans, then how can you possibly shut up and meekly go along with it ? You can’t. You can’t abdicate personal responsibility for what is being done in your name.
Is it right to resist bad laws ? Yes. Howard Zinn reminds us that “Protest beyond the law is not a departure from democracy; it is absolutely essential to it.” Just because something is ‘against the law’ doesn’t make it wrong and just because something is ‘lawful’ doesn’t make it right. Bad laws should be robustly and continually challenged. Some would argue that, if they cannot be swiftly and effectively changed, they should be ignored or broken for the public good. The uncomfortable truth is that none of us can escape personal responsibility for what is done in our name.
So it’s never a valid excuse for doing or permitting something vile and harmful to say ‘but it’s the law’. If some extreme right-wing administration were to ram through a law legalizing slavery or condemning homosexuals to death, and an extreme right-wing Supreme Court were to uphold it should you go along with it, even under protest, just because it’s ‘the law’ ? Of course not. Similarly it’s never a valid excuse for police, military, or public officials doing or permitting something vile and harmful to say ‘but I was just following orders’. At the Nuremberg trial of Nazi war criminals after WW2 that argument was treated with the contempt it should still receive today.
This is not a recipe for chaos or constant conflict in all circumstances. Of course it’s possible to compromise across political divides and work together on matters where common ground might exist and that’s obviously desirable whenever possible. Washington needs more of it. But sometimes that isn’t possible. You might, with good will, give and take on many things but not ones that go against your core beliefs. Not things that will harm and kill people or make their lives miserable. Not things that deny the principles of tolerance and equality America is supposed to cherish.
For example, you cannot show any respect for, or comply with, any political administration or laws that permit torture, or discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. How can you possibly compromise or collude there ? And you can’t be compliant and wait for years, even if you use them to work for change, if people are being harmed every day. I mentioned Howard Zinn before and here’s something else he said that’s especially relevant today, “Historically, the most terrible things - war, genocide, and slavery - have resulted not from disobedience, but from obedience.”
Everyone has a responsibility to stand up for what they believe in and resist what they know is harmful to humanity. Certainly it’s never easy, and with such highly subjective concepts as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ the scope for consensus is limited while that for conflict is not, but what else can you do ? In the end, you have to stand for something or you stand for nothing.
theartofmadeline
jacobvanloon
izzy806
titsay
discoholicmusic
vaporwave
