The following is Part 1 of a multi-part
series called the American Existential Crisis.
For the past several months the Occupy
movement has had numerous roller coaster moments across the United
States. What began in New York City spread across the nation and then
across the globe, eventually taking place in 951 cities in 82
countries. I wrote about my experience in Oakland, CA for Gridlock
Magazine last month (shameless plug). The most surprising fact that
arose from the Occupy protests was the speed in which it became a
national demonstration of police versus protester, authoritarian
versus egalitarian, and following the law versus free speech.
Protester: speech, assembly,
petition
The first amendment to the Constitution
guarantees freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and the
ability to petition the government. The ideas were oft spoken during
the enlightenment, however, America's founders took major inspiration
from the English Bill of Rights which guaranteed similar freedoms in
1689. Why would colonist need to have a revolution in order to
basically copy down the same rights? Partly because colonists didn't
enjoy those freedoms the same way British citizen living in England
did. The English Bill of Rights, specifically the right of
petitioning the government, refers to the actual government of
Britain, which is not the monarchy but the House of Parliament.
Colonists wanted British laws to reflect their needs but had no one
to petition because they had no representatives in Parliament. When
they instead petitioned the King, that became treason. Remember, the
first calls of the colonist were not for revolution but
representation.
I went on that tangent because A. I
need to keep my history muscle flexing if I want to get a job and B.
to say that you have the right to petition the government.
After the American and French
revolutions these freedoms of speech, religion, assembly and press
would work into numerous other documents and constitutions throughout
history. Including, the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights
and the
1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which,
as their name might suggest, refer to not just countries but people.
Not citizens of a nation, but people. Are you a human? If the answer
is yes you have got these rights. If the answer is no then you are a
very bright chimpanzee, dolphin or whale and I applaud your
intelligence and ability to read, but, alas, you do not have rights.
Sorry.
There is also overwhelming support for
the freedom of the press, religion, speech and assembly. Not many
Americans call for a removal of these freedoms. Mainly because we are
stubborn by nature and don't like to change, and, more importantly,
without the freedom to trash people 90% of internet comments would be
considered illegal.
Obviously, the Occupy movement is just
a continuation of the long-standing American tradition of sticking it
to the man. Right?
Police: a nation of laws
The fact that some people bothered to
write down a constitution with amendments, and loopholes, and
compromises and those freedoms we all know and love demonstrates that
we are a nation of laws. Anarchy has never been in our nature. It
ruled for awhile in the wild west before the law man rolled into town
and started beating women, outlawing six-shooters and building
railroads. (Sorry, my old west history is made up entirely of half-remembered
Westerns).
America has always been a nation of
laws, contracts and agreements. Even in colonial times contracts were
clearly written to describe what was expected of each colony. These
charters provided a blueprint for colonists to work from. After the
revolution a constitution was the next logical step, because that was
what everyone had been doing before. The founders were not the
inventors of writing down what an organization could or could not do,
they merely applied a business model onto a country.
Presently, Americans still value
following the law and have respect for authority figures. We
fundamentally believe in the social contract promised to us by our
forefathers. Most likely our respect for authority is derived from those freedoms we so thoroughly enjoy.
Violence versus Nonviolence
With the clashes between protestors and
police, at least part of the American identity is being torn in two.
On one hand, we value our freedoms, especially those of speech and
assembly. On the other hand, we respect authority and enjoy the
predictability/stability that comes with it. What's an American to
do?
Neither side has made a compelling case
for why they are "right". Mainly this is do to the fact
that each party has used tactics of violence. The below chart
references political protests and their success rates.
For all of you out there planning on
starting a protest, if you want your goals to fail- plan for
violence. Sadly, both police and protesters have acted violently during
the past few months.
At UC Davis, a group of campus police
officers were surrounded by student protestors and could not leave.
There were no reports of violent action against any officers. The
official report says that officers wanted to leave the circle, asked
students to move, ordered them to move and, when students did not comply, an officer sprayed them with pepper spray.
That's not actions of an officer of the
law, that's the reasoning of a thug. "They were in my way, I was
stronger than them, I made them move." It is exactly those types
of actions, and there have been more than one, that make it difficult
to side with authority.
Yet, protests have not been peaceful,
hippie drum circles where everyone gives hugs and sings kumbaya.
Fighting has broken out inside several occupy camps, there have been
stabbings and shootings, and, especially in Oakland, there have been
attacks against property and police officers.
It would seem that neither side can
claim the moral high ground, and neither is truly attempting to. Both
sides believe that, by right, the other should back down. Protesters because they are normal people expressing themselves as protected by
the constitution, police because they are charged with protecting and
have been given the mantle of authority to do so.
We know from history that brute force
often wins, but that average people romanticize moral icons. Gandhi
and Martin Luther King hold equal footing with Alexander the Great
and Genghis Khan. It remains to be seen which side will win this
fight, or if both camps will dissolve back into their former place in
society.
What can be said for certain is that
the fight between protestor and police is merely one piece of the
American existential crisis.