By now the incident at November 18th’s performance of “Hamilton” has gone viral, including the
tweets in response by our President-elect, including this one (which has since been deleted):
As you can tell by my subject line, I want to focus on the idea of being “very rude.”
There have always been those who want to set the bounds of discourse in such a way that they are not discomforted. To discomfort them, usually those in positions of power or authority, is considered — by them and their acolytes — as unbridled rudeness.
And yet, if the bounds of discourse are such that comments and observations and reactions outside the norm are not allowed, whether suppressed legally or by moral suasion with the force of society, that society does not advance, but rather stagnates in a destructive way.
Mankind has in its wisdom, often as expressed in its creative classes, always recognized this.
Think if you will of the fable of the emperor’s new clothes — it takes a child unsocialized to the point of not being bound by the strictures of lese majestie to point out that the emperor is in fact naked.
Too often those in power and authority want to keep that power and authority — regardless of whether or not how they achieved it was even at that time in the eyes of others legitimate.
Those that criticize the social norms are often attacked. Those that take actions to rectify what they perceive as injustice are not only criticized, but also subject to penalties legal as well as societal.
Our Founders recognized this, with many making clear that absent protection of basic rights — including those of criticizing the government and those with power — there would be no constitution establishing the new Republican on a foundation that could last. Thus we see in the First Amendment not only the two-fold protection of religious liberty in the parallel clauses of no establishment and free exercise, but also the the basic political freedoms of expression through freedom of press, speech, and assembly, as well as the right to petition for redress of grievances.
George Washington and his administration were subject to criticism, including by a press established with the help of some who while serving in the government disagreed with the policies being espoused. It is fascinating to read the various dueling newspapers of the Washington administration to see how this played out. Washington, however, knew that for the republic to survive those in power could not be isolated from the slings and arrows of criticism on both personal and policy grounds.
Perhaps it is because of my Jewish background that I take all this very seriously.
At least in the Reformed Jewish household in which I grew up we were taught that when we saw something we thought wrong or unfair to challenge it. Perhaps we trace this back to Abraham’s arguing with God over whether or not Sodom and Gomorrah should be destroyed, with Abraham arguing God down to if there were even ten just men in the city it should not be destroyed — although even that minimal number could not be met.
Perhaps it is because we did not automatically play by the rules as determined by others, especially when those rules were sometimes even changed to exclude us. Thus an elite university might suddenly change its admission criteria to include geographic diversity only when it became obvious that if it did not those who qualified from New York City and its suburbs would be heavily Jewish.
Or perhaps it would be because having ourselves been subject to discrimination we would be outspoken about discrimination, legal or societal, that restricted the participation of others. Thus people of Jewish background, religious or otherwise, were over-represented in the efforts to gain civil rights for African Americans in the 1950s and 1960s: think of Schwerner and Goodman, lynched with Chaney; think of Jack Greenberg, long-time major figure at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund; think of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel on civil rights marches. Perhaps that is why at age 17 I became involved in civil rights activity.
In contrast, I want to go back one election cycle. Allow me to quote from this Washington Post column by Jonathan Capehart
During a “Today” show interview the morning after he won the New Hampshire primary, Romney was asked about his charge that President Obama was dividing the country “with the bitter politics of envy.” He agreed with Matt Lauer saying, “I think it's about class warfare.” Then Romney hammered Obama for “dividing America based on 99 percent versus 1 percent.”
“Aren’t there questions about the distribution of wealth without it being seen as envy?” Lauer asked. Romney’s response was an instant classic: “I think it's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and tax policy and the like.”
“Quiet rooms.”
While Capehart is using those remarks in contrast to the setting of rich people in which Romney made his famous 47% remark, I focus on something else, the mindset that those already in the elite and and powerful get to decide what is legitimate to discuss as well as those who get to participate in such discussions. For others to insist on their right to participate is, to that mindset, “rude” to an extreme.
In which case, I proudly claim the label of being rude, because I will not stay silent when I see things that I think are even questionable, where I think we ALL need to be included in discussion as it affect all of us whether or not we choose at first t0 recognize it.
In fact, I will be “very rude” because I may well bring up such things at times that are not convenient for those who are either oblivious or even hostile to the injustice or pain or anger that it is the cause of the rudeness — perhaps because that may be the only non-violent way to get attention for injustice.
Sometimes in order to get attention if our being “very rude” is not sufficient for some effort to redress the grievances which lead to our outbursts, we may violate laws. I note that we now have at least one pro-Trump state legislator who wishes to make protests against the incoming President a felony. We have been down this route before folks, and might I remind people that making it illegal to protest injustice is what led to one of the most profound statements, political and moral, that this country has ever seen? A man in jail for leading a protest against segregation deemed to be illegal read in a newspaper the condemnation of his actions by religious leaders, not themselves segregationist, but ostensibly “moderate.” He wrote his response on the margins of the newspaper, including these words:
Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.
The author of those words is talking about a step beyond being “very rude” because even that would have been insufficient. He would go on to say
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.
By now I would hope my readers would realize the author is Martin Luther King Jr. and the words are from his Letter from a Birmingham Jail.
Perhaps you might react negatively to my invoking King’s words on this occasion. But I think they are particularly relevant, especially as we have recently seen an unleashing of racist, misogynistic, homophobic and xenophobic actions — largely not condemned by the President-elect — that bespeak a mindset that would take us back from the progress we have made as a society, that would go back to a time where discrimination against “the other” was enforced by custom and by law, and those who sought to change it were criminalized or worse (again, Goodman, Schwerner, Chaney) for their actions. The response to their challenges to the injustice they saw was worse than “very rude.”
Mr. Trump and his supporters need to keep in mind several things. All political leaders are subject to criticism, even rudeness — think of a Congressman yelling during a State of the Union “You Lie!” at a President of the United States. All who put themselves forth in the public eye whether for power politically or profit are public figures, and thus under our defamation laws cannot gain financial recourse simply because their feelings were hurt, although Mr. Trump has multiple times made clear he would prefer the British system of defamation law which would enable him to gain financial revenge against his critics. He — and they — should also remember that while he gained a majority of the electoral votes, he did not even have a plurality of the popular vote, and those voting for him represent only about ¼ of the population. He still has to earn the trust and respect of the vast majority of the American people. That is true of any incoming American President, but especially true in this case.
We the American people have normally been generous with our new Presidents. But that has been because we have seen those newly elected as doing the work of the people for which they were elected, not enriching themselves and settling scores.
Being very rude in a public venue should serve as a cautionary warning — not to those expressing in a way Mr. Trump improperly labels as being “very rude” but to those at whom such rudeness is directed — you still have to earn our trust and respect.
“The emperor is naked” even if this would-be emperor and his toadies clothe themselves with gilt: putting lipstick on a pig does not turn that porcine creature into a beautiful woman.
We have 61 days until Mr. Trump is sworn in, then conceivably almost four years until the American people can directly render a judgment on his performance in another presidential election.But that does not mean we will, between now and January 20 or now and early November 2020 acquiesce in all that he does or attempts to do. We will, as Americans with First Amendment rights, express our opinions, whether they be in support or in opposition to any and all pronouncements and action.
If that makes us ‘very rude” so be it.
And if Mr. Trump is unwilling to abide by that, which is part of the Constitution which in his oath or affirmation he will commit to the best of his ability, whatever that may be, “preserve, protect and defend,” then he can choose not to take that oath or affirmation and step aside.
If he, or Mr. Pence, are unwilling to abide by the spirit as well as the letter of our Bill of Rights, neither should be in the executive offices that head our government and our nation.
So they should get used to it.
They will be criticized.
And some Americans can be “very rude” indeed.
As Mr. Trump himself has been for the past 8 years with respect to the current occupant of the office upon which he is about to embark.