In a “Fired up for Freedom” rally to be held in Danville, Virginia next Saturday, Nigel Coleman, the organizer of this latest Tea Party protest, intends to burn effigies of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and freshman House Representative, Rep. Tom Perriello, D-N.C. CNN reports. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/13/tea-party-leader-vows-to-burn-pelosi-and-perriello-in-effigy/
Tea Party rallies on the steps of the Capitol are one thing. Altering images of President Obama so that he looks like Hitler, and holding up images of Nazi concentration camps is another. And hanging an burning effigies of political leaders is a whole new level. Frankly, it is not only abhorrent, but scary.
The biggest concern, perhaps, about these protests is that they are growing increasingly violent. There is a trend of passionate protest at all of them. But the level of anger at each of them appears to mount with each successive event. How far will these organizers go? Furthermore, the image of effigies hanging and being burned is frighteningly analogous to racist acts performed by white supremacists and other biased groups against African-Americans. The fact that Pelosi and Perriello are white does not mitigate the offensiveness of this act. The act itself symbolizes hate, and to whomever it is applied, it suggests violence. Finally, such acts are not helpful to political discourse. They inflame passion and hate and perhaps even incite violence. However, they do nothing to add to the debate.
The venemous hate these protestors have, as demonstrated by these intended acts, should be condemned not only by Democrats, but their colleagues across the aisle as well. When protestors resort to acts that are such an iconic symbol of hate, nobody can justify it in the name of freedom of speech. This is not speech. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has liberalized the First Amendment to such an extent that it likely would be difficult to proscribe these acts. But perhaps a claim could be brought to proscribe such speech in the name of preventing an incitement to violence. In Feiner v. N.Y. (1951), the Supreme Court noted: “It is one thing to say that the police cannot be used as an instrument for the suppression of unpopular views, and another to say that, when as here the speaker passes the bounds of argument or persuasion and undertakes incitement to riot, they are powerless to prevent a breach of the peace.” In other words, the Court took the position that while the State cannot let hostile audiences silence the speaker – given the speaker’s right to speak - there is a line that can be crossed (i.e., when violence and riots are imminent); and that is where the State may step in. I think a legitimate claim could be made that burning effigies of political figures gives rise to a breach of the peace, such that those acts may be proscribed. In any event, both Democrats and Republicans should condemn such acts as not only unhelpful to political discourse, but also dangerous to public debate because of the hatred such acts engender.
These Tea Party protests should raise eyebrows, as the acts at such events appear to be growing increasingly violent. One cringes to think what the organizers intend to do at the next protest after this one in Danville transpires.
I think debating the tone of these protests is important, but assuming outcomes is dangerous and ultimately unfair. There is a very important quote in the CNN article:
‘”We’re not going to actually set Perriello on fire or Mrs. Pelosi on fire,” Coleman said. “But we have been trying to months to get our point across just how vehemently we are opposed to this health care legislation. For the House vote to come so close and to know that Mr. Perriello is on the other side, it’s a kick in the stomach that a lot of people couldn’t take.”‘
I think burning effigies is excessive, but it reflects a desperation of agency. Congress has, without question, reached a point where it does not effectively, appropriately, or honestly represent the people of this country. When the people no longer feel that they have a voice, that’s where the real danger beings.
I agree with your point that perhaps it is unfair to assume outcomes before they actually begin. But the intent of these protestors, as Coleman suggests, is still there and worth debating in my view.
As to the quote you pulled from CNN, I believe that Coleman is indicating that he won’t literally set fire to Pelosi or Perriello, but he still leaves the door open for burning their effigies. As you yourself agree, “burning effigies is excessive.” That should end the debate right there. Regardless of how unresponsive Congress perhaps has been to the public, that doesn’t justify excessive acts. I assume you surely wouldn’t justify protestors threatening Congressmen, or assaulting them or their families. So then there is a point at which protesting goes too far, and I think burning effigies crosses that line.
“Congress has, without question, reached a point where it does not effectively, appropriately, or honestly represent the people of this country.”
How can you assume what the people want? Just because a substantial group of protestors, Fox News, and the Wall Street Journal, etc. are strongly opposed to government health care doesn’t mean that Congress isn’t “representing the people of this country.” In fact, a recent Gallup poll indicates that 25% of the public supports a Bill, and only 33% oppose it. http://www.gallup.com/poll/4708/healthcare-system.aspx Those numbers are too significant to suggest that Congress is failing to represent the people of this country.
In any event, there are always going to be disenfranchised people. Consider the 1960s Civil Rights Act. Surely, a large segment of the population was vehemently opposed to that, but Congress still passed it as a matter of public policy. The same thing could be said here about government health care – i.e., even, assuming that a large segment of the population is opposed to it (which doesn’t appear to be the case anyway, based on that poll above), it should be passed anyway as a matter of public policy.
“I assume you surely wouldn’t justify protestors threatening Congressmen, or assaulting them or their families.” Of course not, nor do I think that burning effigies has any relationship to actual threats. Wwhat you and I deem to be “excessive” is irrelevant. Just because we wouldn’t do it doesn’t mean it is wrong or illegal. An effigy is a symbol and nothing more, and there is no crime in symbolism. I don’t think that a line has been crossed.
As for Congress, healthcare certainly isn’t the only thing they are messing up. Congress has a 66.6% disapproval rating. I think that is a pretty clear indicator that Congress isn’t representing the people of this country. 66.6% of the country feels disenfranchised. It is the 26% that approve of Congress that should be the disenfranchised minority.