Henry David Thoreau’s Essay on Civil Disobedience was published posthumously in 1866. I remember having to memorize a definition in high school when we studied this landmark essay. Civil Disobedience occurs when a citizen intentionally violates the law and is willing to face the consequences. Our teacher made a big deal about that last part – willingness to face the consequences – as being vital to the effectiveness of civil disobedience as a tool for social change. I haven’t heard a better definition, so I’ll continue to use that one.
I remember seeing protestors hauled away in handcuffs for blocking a road or preventing workers from accessing their equipment. This would fit the definition that I learned. I also remember environmentalists hammering spikes into trees for the purpose of deterring (or even injuring) loggers. This would not qualify as civil disobedience by my definition. So what does More Spock think of today’s protests?
January 6 – most attendees believed this to be a legitimate, peaceful protest by people who felt the 2020 election was tampered with. This article is not about whether those claims are true or not, it’s about citizens’ response to a social issue that they are passionate about. This article is also not about whether the events that unfolded that day were pre-planned or spontaneous (or some combination). It’s about what the citizens actually did. Marching from the event to the capital building is appropriate protest. But those who decided to breech the capital grounds to either physical harm or at least intimidate Mike Pence and physically stop the election certification were not participating in appropriate civil disobedience. Nor were those who damaged or stole government property (such as the woman who stole Speaker Pelosi’s laptop).
Abortion protests at Supreme Court justices homes – this is an interesting one. There are laws that specifically prohibit attempts to intimidate judges into making judicial decisions under duress. But the definition of civil disobedience is intentionally breaking the law and being willing to face the consequences. Those people marching in front of the homes of Justice Roberts, Alito, Thomas, et. al. should be arrested – that’s the consequence. Punishment should be light for participating in a peaceful civil disobedience exercise, but there should be consequences. On a side note, the White House has promoted and encouraged this behavior. If one of those homes gets vandalized or if someone gets injured, it’s going to be hard for democrats to differentiate Trump’s behavior on Jan 6 and the White House’s response to protests after the Alito document leak.
BLM and Occupy – like the Jan 6 riot, BLM protests have been full of people who were simply exercising their right to peacefully protest. But some participants either pre-planned or spontaneously decided that destroying property and threatening people was OK. BLM protestors who are arrested for blocking traffic, etc. to promote their dissatisfaction are participating in appropriate civil disobedience. BLM protestors who set fire to vehicles and loot stores and businesses while attempting to avoid capture, are not. They are simply criminal opportunists. Similarly, those who lead Occupy protests or create autonomous zones in cities are practicing civil disobedience if they are willing to stand up and face the consequences of their conduct. If they choose to terrorize the residents of that community and steal their property, later attempting to hide when law enforcement finally breaks up the occupation, they are criminals, not political activists.
Antifa – nothing about Antifa is legitimate political protest. By definition, when you put on a mask, you’re not participating in civil disobedience (remember the KKK?). When you use violence and fear to accomplish your objectives, you are a terrorist, not an activist.
In summary, I welcome political action. Influence from legal protests sometimes results in bad policy (like prohibition in 1920) and sometimes in good policy (like the Civil Rights Act of 1964). But legal protests generate conversation and debate. When people participate in appropriate civil disobedience (like Jane Fonda many times) and are willing to be arrested to bring attention to what they believe in, that should be celebrated. But attempting to sway public opinion through violence and property damage is not appropriate. Protestors need to win the battle of ideas, not force change in order to be appeased.