The Tea Party’s disappointment with the Republican field

Posted on January 25, 2012 by David S. Meyer

In seeking both a powerful advocate or a strong candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, the Tea Partiers are likely to get neither.

Elections channel and dilute social movements.  This was James Madison’s design, and it works pretty much as he expected.  It fragments and filters social movements, and produces a great deal of frustration.

The Tea Party’s strong influence in the Republican Party has paradoxically produced an extremely weak and damaged field of contenders.  Tea Party enthusiasm and money encouraged a few very weak candidates (including Herman Cain and Rep. Michele Bachmann), and crowded out a few potentially strong ones.  And all of the hopefuls, with the partial exception of Jon Huntsman, were eager to pander to some version of the Tea Party to make progress in the primaries.

Of course, it’s hard to tie the Tea Party to a specific set of policy demands or issues.  Activists initially united on opposition to President Obama’s health care reforms.  Although there was shared language on the Constitution, limited government, deficits, and taxation, Tea Party groups differed greatly on how to pursue these goals and on their priorities.  In the early part of the Tea Party, there was a general agreement to put social issues, specifically abortion and same sex marriage, on the back burner.

In pursuit of the Republican Party’s presidential nomination, all of the candidates have brought those issues to the fore, and have fought to distinguish themselves by the vigor and authenticity of their commitment to those social issues.

And now, the most charitable interpretation is that Tea Party still has three candidates who appeal to its agenda, but partly and poorly.

Rep. Ron Paul, who has espoused a vision of limited government for decades, plausibly stands for the libertarian stream in the Tea Party, with a notable exception for his opposition to abortion.  But Rep. Paul has also alienated the party establishment, which ignores him when possible, offering occasional denigration of his vision of a very restrictive vision of foreign and military policy.

Former Senator Rick Santorum has a history as a social conservative, in Congress and since, and has championed the issues Tea Partiers initially decided were too divisive to organize around.  On fiscal matters, he politicked just like a regular Republican.

Finally, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, whose record offers little consistency on any set of issues, has effectively channeled a Tea Party attitude: anger and entitlement.  Thus far, he has been able to win support by railing against the media and Washington elites, while deflecting attention from his past, political or personal, or coherent positions on issues.  This might be able to carry him a long way, but the obvious reluctance of mainstream Republicans to have Speaker Gingrich top their ticket makes it unlikely.

So, Tea Party efforts are likely to help former Governor Mitt Romney, not a real Tea Partier on any dimension, emerge as the the Republican nominee.

It’s an American story.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Roe v. Wade commemorations, 2012

Posted on January 23, 2012 by David S. Meyer

Last year, anti-abortion and abortion rights activists staged demonstrations commemorating (or protesting) the 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade.  Below is last year’s post, which ends with the prediction of large demonstrations next year. 

That’s today.  And today: both sides staged demonstrations in Washington, DC.  The March for Life turnout is reported to be somewhat larger.  This makes sense; as long as abortion remains legal, their grievance will seem a little less desperate. 

Perhaps the biggest story here is that the anti-abortion forces are firmly established with in the Republican Party, and all of the Republican presidential hopefuls have staked out strong anti-abortion positions.  Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum all signed a pledge demanded by the Susan B. Anthony list, committing themselves to appointing only judges who have committed to an anti-abortion stance.  Mitt Romney wouldn’t sign the pledge, but made the same promise. 

House Speaker John Boehner was among the Republican leaders to address the crowd, promising to stop funding for Planned Parenthood and focusing activists on the election.  Last year’s report is almost like this year’s, save for the strong focus on the presidential election.  Republican officials urged the demonstrators to rally behind the eventual Republican nominee, putting other issues on the back burner.  Later, Democrats will do the same with abortion rights activists.

Visitors to Washington, DC can choose either an anti-abortion or abortion rights demonstration this week.

The March for Life started with a rally on the

National Mall, then activists marched to the Supreme Court to protest Roe v. Wade, praying for the health of the justices.  Abortion rights activists started at the Court, and sponsored sympathy demonstrations around the country; they also prayed for the health of the justices.

Thirty-eight years ago the US Supreme Court announced its  Roe decision, establishing a Constitutional right for women to have access to legal abortion s, and finally resolving an issue that had become increasingly contested in the previous decade.  Uh, not quite.

Roe nationalized the abortion debate, and within a few years abortion politics became a critical issue in party politics, mobilizing new activism and demonstrating–and exacerbating–deep divisions in American life. Anti-abortion and abortion rights activists stoked increased interest in existing political organizations, established new movement groups, and mobilized several new generations of activists on the issue.  Politicians have played to one side or the other, often emphasizing the threat represented by their opponents.  The politics of abortion access are more contested in the United States than anywhere else in the world.

And every year, on the anniversary of the decision, activists on both sides assemble by the Court, in varying numbers and varying degrees of civility.  It’s an opportunity for a show of strength, a chance to demonstrate commitment and resolve, and an event to organize and fundraise around.

It’s hard to remember that Roe didn’t generate wide interest in 1973, especially as it’s become the rhetorical and political centerpiece for both sides in the abortion battle.  But changes in national politics made abortion a valuable issue for activists and politicians.  Fundraising and electoral reforms meant that individual candidates gained increasing responsibility to do their own fundraising, cobbling together issues that had traction in the body politic.  Jimmy Carter first demonstrated the value of evangelicals of a political constituency in campaign leading up to his election in 1976, and Ronald Reagan played to that constituency far more effectively in his 1980 campaign.

In the meantime, the anniversary of the decision became an unavoidable event for activist organizations.  The commemorations, of course, generate far more attention each year than the decision did in 1973.  When anti-abortion activists started the commemorations, abortion rights activists responded by putting their side in the streets–and in the news–as well.  Now, locked in a perverse symbiotic stalemate, neither side can give up and cede the day–and the battle–to its opponents.  Looking at the other side each year, sometimes across barricades, sometimes in the news, inspires activists to keep up their efforts, including going to meetings, attending events, and sending money.

The March for Life organizes its efforts around this demonstration every year, doing a little better when there’s a Democratic president committed to abortion rights.  A coalition of women’s and reproductive rights groups organizes in support of the decision, doing a little better when Republican presidents work to erode abortion rights.

Of course, each side mobilizes throughout much of the rest of the year, outside clinics, in state electoral campaigns, and particularly when there’s a vacancy on the Supreme Court.  But the Roe anniversary is the most predictable moment each year when you know that the other side and the mass media will be watching.

Here I predict there will be large demonstrations on both sides next year as well.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Occupy Congress

Posted on January 16, 2012 by David S. Meyer

Sooner or later activists in any American movement confront the possibility of trying to adjust the thermostat, and not just the climate.

On Tuesday, January 17, when members of Congress return to Washington, DC, they’ll be met by Occupiers.  There will be demonstrations, certainly, and I’d be astonished if at least some activists don’t try to pitch tents.  And there will be a range of issues: an end to “corporate personhood;” a push for affordable health insurance and college educations; general concern with using taxation and spending to ameliorate growing economic inequality.  Occupy groups are also taking on statehood for Washington, DC, cutting defense spending, and ensuring open access on the internet.  The news angle on these events is that Occupiers are also going to try to meet with members of Congress, conducting politics indoors as well as outdoors.

Even as Occupiers try to schedule, there’s no indication that they’re trying to ingratiate themselves or their movement with members of Congress. From Occupy Wall Street, we get a clear view of an Occupy take on taking on Congress:

At 9 am on the opening day of Congress, Occupy Congress will convene for a day of action against a corrupt political institution. Actions include a multi-occupational General Assembly, teach-ins, an OCCUParty, a pink slip for every congressional “representative” and a march on all three branches of a puppet government that sold our rights and our futures to the 1%.

This is an illegitimate system. Around half of the nation’s population doesn’t participate in electoral politics. More than 6 million Americans who want to vote are disenfranchised, including the entire populace of the District of Columbia. There is consensus that we are on the wrong track and that our “leaders” do not have our interests at heart.

All “elected” officials bought their way into gerrymandered seats with Wall Street money. These bankers’ henchmen have shown themselves both unwilling and unable to take on the tremendous, systemic issues in our country, our place in this world…We came to show the 1%’s Congress what democracy looks like.

Our nation, and our world, is in crisis and our “elected” officials have failed us. They refused to hold their bankrollers—Wall Street—responsible for the financial crimes that bankrupted our nation and destroyed the global economy. This last legislative cycle was the least productive in recorded U.S. history; 90% of the country disapproves of these “elected” officials.

There’s an obvious tension between the strong rhetoric proclaimed in Zuccotti Park–and on websites everywhere–and an actual–and possibly productive–conversation that may take place in an elected official’s office–even if you put quotation marks around “elected.”

Congress, you see, is already occupied.  Pretending this isn’t the case–or that it doesn’t matter–dooms a movement to a marginal place in American politics that most activists won’t accept.  It’s a tension built into the system.

While activists in the streets rail against inequality, unfair taxation, health care, and debt for housing and education, there are people in Washington DC making decisions that affect relevant policies.  Ignoring them doesn’t make them go away, nor does it make them less powerful.  Some legislators might be affected by the quality of an argument, or strengthened in their convictions when they find some citizens who see things as they do.  The argument might become more persuasive if a legislator believed it came with help in the next election, financial or otherwise.  This might mean tapering off on the sarcasm and the scare quotes.

The problem for activists is the distinct possibility that more conventional politics might matter, and the ongoing question is whether it could matter enough.  While activists who lobby see the potential in pragmatism, their allies in the streets smell the prospects of a sell-out.

There’s not a formula for negotiating this balance, and activists supporting different strategies can develop every bit as much antipathy for each other as their political opponents.  But savvy demonstrators know that they do better when allies explain the demands in longer and more nuanced sentences.  And citizen lobbyists think they’ll get a better hearing when the voices outside turn up the volume.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Martin Luther King and dead heroes (King Day again)

Posted on January 15, 2012 by David S. Meyer
Martin Luther King died young enough and dramatically enough to be turned into an American hero, but it was neither his youth nor his death that made him heroic.

In his rather brief public life, beginning in Montgomery at 26, and ending with his assassination at 39, King consistently displayed rhetorical brilliance (on the podium and the page), strategic acumen, and moral and physical courage.

The effort to honor Martin Luther King with a holiday commemorating his birthday started at the King Center, in Atlanta, in the year after his assassination.  States began to follow suit, and by 1983, more than half celebrated King’s life with a day.  In that year, Ronald Reagan signed a bill making Martin Luther King day a national holiday expressing ambivalence, acknowledging that it was costly, and that King may have been a Communist.

The King holiday was about Martin Luther King, to be sure, but it was meant to represent far more than the man.  King stands in for the civil rights movement and for African-American history more generally.  I often wonder if the eloquence of the 1963 “I have a dream” speech winds up obscuring not only a man with broader goals, but a much more contested–and ambitious–movement.

The man and the movement are ossified into an iconic image, like a statue, which locks King and the movement into the politics of 1963-1965.  We accept King’s dream, that little children will play together, and that people will be judged by “the content of their character” (a favorite phrase on the right).

The image, like a statue, is available for appropriation to advocates of all political stripes, and the establishment of the holiday itself represents an achievement of the civil rights movement, winning the holiday if not broader economic and social equality.

Before the transformation of the man into an icon, King transformed himself from a pastor into an activist, a peripatetic crusader for justice.

But the pastor didn’t disappear; rather this role grew into something larger, as King himself transformed himself from a minister into a an Old Testament prophet, one whose primary concern was always the people on the margins, the widows and orphans, the poor and hungry.  In standing with those on the margins, King courageously used–and risked–the advantages of his privilege, pedigree, and education.  He also knew that he risked his safety and his life.

In his writing, King used his education and his vocation to support his political goals.  In the critically important “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” he cited both the Constitution and the Bible in support of Federal intervention in local politics to support desegregation and human rights.  (We know that other activists now use the same sources to justify pushing the Federal government out of local politics.)

King explained that he was in jail in Birmingham, Alabama, because he had nonviolently defied local authorities in the service of higher laws, the Constitution and the Gospel.  This was not like making a provocative statement on one’s own [profitable] radio or television show.  There were real costs and severe risks.

King was never less than controversial during his life, under FBI surveillance during his political career, and vigorously criticized by opponents (for demanding too much and too strongly) and allies (for not demanding more, more vigorously).

When he was assassinated outside a Memphis motel in 1968, he was standing with sanitation workers on strike, straying from a simpler civil rights agenda.  He had also alienated some civil rights supporters by coming out, strongly, against the war in Vietnam.  And Black Power activists saw their own efforts as overtaking King’s politics and rhetoric.  By the time he was killed, Martin Luther King’s popular support had been waning for some time.

Posterity has rescued an image of Martin Luther King, at the expense of the man’s own broader political vision.

Ironically, in elevating an insurgent to a position in America’s pantheon of historic heroes, we risk editing out the insurgency.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Remembering the present: Guantanamo protests and a decade of detention

Posted on January 12, 2012 by David S. Meyer

President Obama didn’t keep his campaign promise to close the American prison for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay.  Yesterday marked Gitmo’s 10th anniversary.  The camp on Cuba, conveniently perhaps outside the jurisdiction of normal legal procedures in the United States, has held nearly 800 prisoners at times.  There are still 171 people still in custody there, held without the prospect of a fair trial in sight.

Candidate Obama promised to close the camp within a year of taking office, forcefully arguing that detaining suspected terrorists indefinitely without access to habeas corpus violated basic American values–and laws, and undermined America’s credibility globally:

By any measure, our system of trying detainees has been a failure. Over the course of nearly seven years, there has not been a single conviction for a terrorist act at Guantanamo. There has just been one conviction for material support of terrorism…Meanwhile, this legal black hole has substantially set back America’s ability to lead the world against the threat of terrorism, and undermined our most basic values. But make no mistake: we are less safe because of the way George Bush has handled this issue.

To be sure, he faced opposition from Congress, but this is an easy promise to score.  It’s 0.

But it’s not a defect or defeat that his Republican opponents are taking him to task for.  The issue is largely absent from the political campaign, and it’s unlikely that any presidential candidate will bring it up.  Most Americans seem to have forgotten.  (See Dahlia Lithwick’s piece at Slate.)

Yesterday, organized by Amnesty International, activists protested against the continued existence of the camp, and the web of policies tied to it.  In Washington, DC, hundreds showed up, some in orange jumpsuits, to remind the president–and the rest of us–of his promise and, more importantly, of the prison camp.  There were smaller demonstrations in cities across the United States and around the world.

Protests can work to keep an issue from disappearing, even when the near-term prospects of influence are bleak.  In covering the demonstrations, mainstream news outlets have a chance to report, again, on the prison camp and a decade of detention.  Activists try to become a conscience that reminds about us about something that has been, for most, rather easy to forget.  Even absent a serious substantive debate–much less policy change–this is an important job, one that may make organizing–or even reform–possible later.

Maybe much later.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

New Hampshire, the Tea Party, and movement capture

Posted on January 10, 2012 by David S. Meyer

As New Hampshire voters and others try to sift through the mess of small differences among the Republican hopefuls (and as everyone in the rest of the country overinterprets the results) it’s good to take a step back to think about what they’re not arguing about: abortion, for example, raising taxes, or whether to cut government.

One way social movements exercise influence is by capturing the discourse on a particular set of policies within one party–or both–such that no serious candidate for office can afford to depart from party orthodoxy.

So, all the Republicans promise to repeal President Obama’s health care reforms, appoint judges who won’t recognize a constitutional right to abortion, and cut taxes, government, and the deficit.  They argue about vigor, consistency, and personality.  Around the edges of the field, they argue about evolution (Jon Huntsman buys the science here) and foreign policy (Ron Paul wants to bow out of most of the world; Rick Perry wants to go back to Iraq), but the exemplars of those policies probably don’t have much chance to come close to the nomination.

The long primary process, which includes close-up scrutiny by committed activist voters, is where orthodoxy is developed and enforced, and it can then trickle down to the rank and file until some partisans are ousted or marginalized.

Abortion politics is the classic example.  In 1980, serious Republican candidates for president supported abortion rights, but that’s a long time ago.  A few Republicans still do–and a few Democrats oppose abortion rights–but the national party positions reflect the unambiguous victory of two social movements.

But it’s harder to fudge abortion than the more expansive and ill-defined politics of the Tea Party.  Although all of the Republicans pledge fealty to Tea Party principles, the Tea Partiers aren’t buying it.  And the candidates define those principles differently.  The Tea Partiers meanwhile are less visible and are rapidly losing the ability to define themselves and their goals.

While the electoral process, particularly the presidential primaries, can lock down loyalty on some issues, on others less defined, it can soften and disperse the intensity of commitment demonstrated not so long ago.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

The Tea Party’s Iowa

Posted on January 5, 2012 by David S. Meyer

Protest movements sometimes have perverse effects, hastening outcomes they don’t want.  Tuesday’s Republican Iowa caucus has to be scored as a disappointment for the Tea Party, perhaps a sign of its dissolution.

The Tea Party, an alliance between populist and plutocrat dissatisfaction with President Obama, coalesced just after Obama took office, and focused early on opposition to his effort to reform and extend health insurance in the United States.  Now, another irony of American politics, Obama’s most likely opponent in the general election signed the legislation on which Obama’s health care reform is based.  Mitt Romney, who won a narrow victory in the Iowa caucus, is preparing to run a campaign in which he will advocate taking health insurance away from tens of millions of Americans–but not the residents of Massachusetts, whom he’s already taken care of.  Tea Partiers, and many Republicans, are understandably uneasy about this prospect.

But it’s worse than that.  The Tea Party captured the imagination of conservative activists around the country, and was an immense aid in firing up Republican voters in 2010.  It also pushed the focus of American political debate to taxes, debt, and deficit, on terms that were initially very unfavorable to President Obama and the Democrats.  The Tea Party succeeded, in part, by putting social issues on the back burner.

But Republican presidential hopefuls seeking Tea Party support sought to distinguish themselves on the vigor of their commitment to stopping abortion and gay marriage.  The Tea Party buoyed up the aspirations of several prospects who proved far from ready for presidential prime time, crowding out more mainstream–and credible–candidates for office.  Thus, the Republican field came to include Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain, but not Tim Pawlenty or Mitch Daniels.  Of course, Mitt Romney, who had been raising money, organizing, and planning, since well before the Tea Party, survived.

Republicans who were dubious about Governor Romney, including Tea Partiers, flirted with a series of alternatives who, for various reasons, were found wanting: Bachmann, Governor Rick Perry, Cain, former Speaker Newt Gingrich.  A longer list could include flirtations with Sarah Palin and Donald Trump as well.

Former Senator Rick Santorum, mostly due to his profile and politics, avoided much affection and attention, until he was the last potentially viable alternative to Romney.  To the extent he’s a Tea Partier, however, it’s as a social conservative, not really a deficit hawk or anti-tax crusader.  At this writing, it’s hard to imagine that Senator Santorum will withstand more than a few weeks of scrutiny.

And what about Rep. Ron Paul, a committed libertarian with a provenance that extends well before the current Tea Party?  His isolationist foreign policies and generally consistent hands-off approach to social issues (except abortion) represent one wing of the early Tea Party.  But they also challenge the orthodoxy of most of the Republican Party.  He brought energy and new voters to the caucuses, but there appears to be a real ceiling to how much his support can grow–and he’s close to that ceiling now.

If Rep. Paul’s support does grow, be sure that mainstream Republicans will go after him–just as some of the Republican hopefuls already have.  They will charge him with a willingness to ignore Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon and supporting the legalization of drugs–and he’ll plead guilty.

And in doing so, they will forsake the Tea Party movement for a restoration of the Reagan Republican coalition.  But the alliance of White religious social conservatives and economic conservatives comprises a smaller share of the electorate today than it did in the 1980s.

So, the successful mobilization of the Tea Party has produced exactly what most Tea Partiers didn’t want.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Occupy the Constitution

Posted on January 2, 2012 by David S. Meyer

At least several hundred protesters marched after the Tournament of Roses Parade, drawing some cheers, some boos, and extensive media coverage.  (Occupy the Rose Parade and the Hollywood Alist estimated 5,000 Occupy marchers.)

Parades are occasions for spectacle and theater, and the Occupiers understood this.  One prop was a marcher-carried Occupy Octopus, stretching more than seventy feet and made of recycled plastic bags.  (Parade symbols aren’t supposed to be subtle: this represented corporate capitalism choking the nation’s well-being.)

Another was a replica of the preamble to the Constitution, blown up to stretch 250 feet.  The symbol has great resonance politically, but is the Constitution really an aid to the Occupiers?  It’s pretty clear that the Founders wrote the Constitution to limit and channel the influence of “the people,” and to protect the interests of better educated–and wealthier–minorities–like the Founders themselves.  And it certainly works, as they intended, to slow the pace of policy reform or political change.  Recall that the Civil War preceded Constitutional reform on slavery.

But Occupy is hardly unique in tacking its claims to an elusive or resistant document.  The Constitution is a popular prop for social movements in the United States.  Tea Party groups are also quick to roll it out and chastise their political enemies for disrespecting it.  Even so, Tea Partiers have called for repealing or radically altering the 14th (birthright citizenship), 16th (direct election of US senators), and 17th (allows federal income tax) amendments.  They’ve also been eager to undo Supreme Court decisions they think have misinterpreted the Constitution, going back, at least, to Marbury v. Madison (1803).  Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, seeking Tea Party support, has announced his intent to have judges called before Congress to explain themselves.  Be assured that activists with limited Constitutional studies in their backgrounds will be quick to question a Supreme Court that allows a national mandate for individuals to buy health insurance.

So activists view the Constitution as an obstacle to change, but only to those changes that their political opponents promote.

At the same time, both the Occupiers and the Tea Partiers are smart to refuse their opponents exclusive authority to claim–and define–the document.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Occupy at the Rose Bowl

Posted on December 31, 2011 by David S. Meyer

A march looks a lot like a parade with demands.

Occupy the Rose Parade will present a presence–with floats–at the 123rd Tournament of Roses Parade on Monday morning in Pasadena.

The parade, patriotic and explicitly non-political, allows cause groups to follow the official parade, accepting without endorsing them.  The Occupy group has signed on, and has negotiated extensively with both local police and the parade administration to minimize disruption, but maximize the message.

One float is a large people-powered octopus, representing “the stranglehold that Wall Street has on the political process.” Local activists plan speeches and signs, and visits from at least a few well-known activists, including anti-war activist, Cindy Sheehan.  Although an Occupy spokesman has promised to respect the iconic, family-oriented nature of the parade, local authorities plan to increase the already robust police presence.

The planning for the event stirred some controversy within Occupy ranks, with some members of Occupy Pasadena participating, but the group refusing to offer an endorsement.   According to Occupy Pasadena participant, Paul Jenvey:

(Occupy Pasadena) was uncomfortable with disrupting the parade, whether intended by the organizer or not … undermining the community outreach we would like to do… (The Occupy Rose Parade) seems to be this vision of one person and the nature of the action was not decided by a democratic body.

Of course.  The consensus-style democratic deliberations that characterized the early phase of the Occupations made all kinds of negotiations with authorities next to impossible.  Someone decided to send an Occupy message at the parade, and when Occupy Pasadena temporized, he or she went ahead anyway, talked with parade officials and police to make the event work.  No one owns the Occupy name, and we’ll be seeing many competing definitions emerge in the next few months.  (This is exactly what happened to the Tea Party!)

The first Occupy float is number 44 in the parade, and there’s no news, at this point, about whether the television cameras and audiences will hang around to appreciate it.

Getting around the constraints of consensus is one piece of this story.  Here’s another:

Activists are not Occupying the Parade, but are putting an Occupy presence within it.  In negotiating an accommodation with authorities, they are making it easier for people to participate and get their messages out; they are also making those messages less newsworthy.

This is the characteristic pattern of institutionalization in American protest politics.  The Tournament of Roses Parade works much the same way as mainstream politics, making space for less disruptive dissent so they can get on with what they normally do.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Who pays for free speech?

Posted on December 30, 2011 by David S. Meyer

One night some years ago, while rushing out to the store to get milk for my kid (my excuse), I rolled slowly through a stop sign.  A police officer stopped and cited me, apologizing as he did so.  To prevent penalty points from accumulating on my driver’s license–and watching my auto insurance premiums rise, I paid $70-80 extra and attended traffic school.

It was stupid and boring and time-consuming (a full day), but it worked.  I no longer roll through stop signs because I don’t want to go back to traffic school.  (Note: I’m sure it doesn’t always work this way; my traffic school classmates spent our lunch break recounting and comparing many previous sessions of traffic school.)

So, someone’s taken this idea to protest.  The LA Times reports that Deputy City Attorney William Carter has offered some arrested Occupy LA protesters the opportunity to avoid trial on misdemeanor charges by attending “free speech classes,” run by a private firm, American Justice Associates.

No doubt, the City Attorney’s office sees this approach as a way to save the expense and trouble of trials for serious or serial offenders.  Maybe officials also hope to impress upon the protesters the idea that in America free speech can come with “reasonable” time, place, and manner restrictions, a fact that at least some activists seem to miss.  (Having a sincere political belief, even an admirable one, doesn’t mean you can express it any way and anywhere you’d like; recall Justice Holmes’s warning about shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.)

But I’d be surprised if many demonstrators jump at the chance to pay $355 for this class, the content of which is still undefined.  They’ve already completed the course practicum, and may be willing to test the City’s capacity and interest in staging prosecutions of misdemeanor offenses.  (Most prosecutors won’t want to repeat the sorry and counterproductive example of Orange County’s handling of the Irvine 11.)

Citizens often face substantial risks and costs in their efforts to make a better world.  Participants in Occupy LA faced arrest and jail time in arraignment, to say nothing of giving up whatever else they might have been doing otherwise.

But America pays other costs for free speech–and we should.  Cities spend time and effort negotiating with political dissidents to choreograph and permit demonstrations, and then spend more money on extra police, court costs, clean-up, and maintenance.  This holds true even (especially!) when the ideas presented are heinous.  At right, see American Nazis, who Skokie police protected from counterdemonstrators.  Below see members of Fred Phelps’s Westboro Church, who consciously exploit America’s Constitutional tolerance for the expression of, uh, unpopular ideas.

Free speech has costs, social, political, and financial.  We hope the benefits are a healthier, saner, and smarter society.

Officials now estimate that Occupy LA cost the City well over $2 million for police, courts, and clean-up.  And this comes at a time when Los Angeles, like almost all American cities, faces severe budget pressure that undermines the delivery of basic services.

So, it’s easy to understand City Attorney Carmen Trutanich’s announcement that he may sue Occupy LA for the costs to the City.  Maybe it’s his wishful thinking, maybe it’s political pandering, but Trutanich should know better: it’s the cost of a free society.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment