Protests Are Many Things, But Not Un-American
Whenever this country comes to a great divide over issues, there is a long held myth that any public acrimony is somehow the antithesis of America. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said as much in a recent column.
Pelosi, along with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, questioned the patriotism of those who have recently disrupted the town-hall meetings on health care. Pelosi and Hoyer wrote that this behavior is "simply un-American."
I can certainly understand Pelosi's frustration, but is it un-American? In 1791, George Washington's first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, amassed enormous powers en route to becoming a controversial figure.
The assumption of the debt, under Hamilton, expanded the power of the federal government. But Hamilton set out to reshape the fledgling nation.
Hamilton put a series of proposals before Congress, with Washington's blessing, instituting a national currency, the dollar. He established a national bank, the precursor to the Federal Reserve.
Moreover, Hamilton's vision stimulated the growth of the stock market. He also proposed the government get directly involved in the development of large-scale industry.
Those such as Thomas Jefferson saw Hamilton as laying the groundwork for a monarchy. Jefferson feared Hamilton was creating a powerful central government that would threaten individual liberty. For Jefferson, Hamilton's policies were too reminiscent of the European state. It was two competing visions of what America should be.
Jefferson and his allies formed a loose political alliance, known as Democratic-Republicans, but commonly referred to themselves simply as "Republicans." Hamilton and the supporters of Washington's administration were called "Federalists." This divide is the first sign of what would ultimately become America's two-party system.
The battle between the parties became a public fight that spilled onto the streets. A new political culture was born; the opinions of ordinary people took on increasing importance, giving rise to highly partisan newspapers unabashedly lobbying the cause of their side.
Hamilton and Jefferson hired journalists to carry their political water and to denigrate the opposition.
Hamilton's Caribbean origins and immigrant status even led to innuendo through the press that he was part black. It was, in the words of Hamilton biographer Ron Chernow, "the golden age of literary and political assassination," depicting the Founders as not exactly a harmonious group in lock-step marching toward a democratic utopia.
Jefferson understood the power of public opinion much more so than Hamilton and he won the public debate. I don't doubt the sincerity of Jefferson's disagreements with Hamilton, but his winning the public battle created one of the great ironies in U.S. history.
Hamilton, the immigrant, the self-made man would be the one cast as an elitist, while Jefferson, born into the Virginia gentry, owner of slaves, his wealth creation greatly aided by unpaid labor, is viewed as the man of the people.
But 218 years of hindsight allow us to see in many ways Hamilton is the quintessential American story. He's a self-made man who comes to this country with very little and through luck and ingenuity built a legacy that we remain the beneficiaries into the present day.
The other ironic historical twist is that although Jefferson (along with Hamilton's own self-destruction) managed to ensure that he and not Hamilton would become president, it was Hamilton's visionary thinking that led to America having the highest credit rating in the world. When France gave President Jefferson the opportunity to purchase the Louisiana Territory and double the area of the United States, money and credit were readily available.
Beginning in the 19th century the canals, the railroads, the heavy industry, the huge cities and the boom in technology that led to the greatest prosperity known to humankind -- can trace their lineage to Hamilton's vision.
But in the 18th century during the heat of battle, those in the public conversation siding against Hamilton and for Jefferson did so against their self-interest. Driven by emotion, influenced by propaganda, bombarded with false facts, nervous about radical change, many saw in Jefferson what they wanted to see, though in many ways Hamilton's story was their story.
This is why I take issue with Pelosi's characterization of those who disrupt the town-hall meeting and ostensibly the health care debate in general.
Are their tactics frustrating? Yes. Are they filled with misinformation? Yes. Are many debating against their self-interest? Yes.
But can we call their actions un-American?
Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist and blog-talk radio host. He is the author of Strip Mall Patriotism: Moral Reflections of the Iraq War. E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com or visit his Web site: byronspeaks.com
Follow Byron Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/byronspeaks
Josh Rosenblatt: Conservative Protesters Show Their Liberal Side on the Streets of D.C.
At this point the fears of white conservative America go beyond losing elections. They're losing the country, losing the culture and losing the future. Hence the three-ring circus that is American democracy in 2009.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It is certain that protest and free speech is absolutely American, but when does that right start to impede on others when all you're doing is screaming, denying others a voice or access to hear their representatives?
Aren't they just doing what has come naturally for politicians to throw around accusations of treason, betrayal and lack of patriotism when they are questioned. I Recall a certain Senator McCarthy in the fifties and then just in the last ten years didn't we have similar if not even more hostile accusations thrown at people opposed to Bush? Why is one so much worse than the other. Would that Reporters had questioned that Administration equally as strenuously, but of course that would have taken some courage or fairness. Where was that?
When we protested the Viet Nam war we did not wear guns.
We were protesting the killing fields, not healthcare for all.
Byron Williams is not helping here and he is no lover of human life.
As soon as your start to read this article, the dishonesty jumps in your face. No one, including Pelosi, have said that acrimony is Un-American. What _has_ been said is that orchastrated attempts to suppress others opinions is against our principles.
Do you doubt this? Is it an American position that if you want to get information that might not support a particular position, the way to deal with it is to whout down anyone who disagrees? Is it the American position to go out of your way to intimidate with aggressive behavior (including prominent display of firearms coupled with slogans supporting assassination) those who might want to attend a venue to get information?
That may be Fox America, or even a large proportion of Republican America. It must not be mistaken for honest America. If it becomes so, we are truly lost.
"Is it the American position to go out of your way to intimidate with aggressive behavior"
-----
Apparently so, think Iraq.
The communists trick was into infiltrate groups and incite them to violent protest, the same tactic the conservatives are using.
And Saul Alinski's (Obama's Community Organizing inspiration and whose group he learned from).
That is not part of Saul's tactics.
That was never just a trick of the Communists. Corporations and companies were using that same tactic against unions during the late 1800s and into the early 1900s. It is a well worn and used method employed by tyrants.
I agree with Pelosi- these mobs in attack mode at the town halls are not groups of like-minded concerned citizens that spontaneously get together to protest an un-American idea- rather they are organized and PAID FOR by corporate interests who have something to lose.
I agree with Pelosi- these mobs in attack mode at the town halls are not groups of like-minded concerned citizens that spontaneously get together to protest an un-American idea- rather they are organized and PAID FOR by corporate interests who have something to lose.
Do you have any hard evidence that shows this, other than Fact chek
Sorry, missed it by that much.
In a sick irony, Pelosi's charge might indeed be wrong if we consider the dubious American tradition of packing heat and the man who recently carried a gun to one of these meetings. Maybe that, sadly, is as American as it gets.
How again did Hamilton die?
in a duel with Aaron Burr. He agreed to fight the other man, and while I am a liberal, I think that custom of duels should be made legal again. I bet I could win a few duels against prominent radio personalities before one of them got lucky...
Your reply is disingenuous. It is entirely clear that Pelosi and Hoyer's use of the term "un-American", in this context, refers to behavior not "consistent with the values the country has committed itself to"; and not to behavior that is never practiced by any significant subset of Americans.
I am fully aware that disruption of opponents' political gatherings was practiced in the Revolutionary era, and in all time since. That's history. But it was a deplorable practice then, and it is a deplorable practice now. And if it ever became "American" -- in the sense that it was common, rather than exceptional, behavior -- it would have long since led us from representative democracy to mob rule.
in light of The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations, how do you reconcile your partisan singling out of speaker pelosi, rep. hoyer, and your own position as pastor?
See Byron Williams's Profile
A number have responded as if we have a working definition of what constitutes American and un-American and conflated it with what’s constitutional and what is patriotic. I am simply looking at behavior to say based on history the protestor’s behavior is profoundly American, and has been since the country’s inception. If we were asking whether the behavior of the protestors is consistent with the values the country has committed itself that might garner a different response. But in this scenario it is akin to asking is racism American? Based on the values the country has itself or its historical behavior?
There is a significant difference between protesting and completely disrupting a meeting with the specific intent of denying any true discussion.
Not working dude. You might not be able to tell the difference between intimidation tactics - if so that's sad - and strong diffrences argued out in public. Most people can.
BTW, very nice interjection of the race card. Not germane, but a nice distraction attempt,
Byron, usually I enjoy your posts, and your historical analysis in this one is nicely done... but I think you come to a very different conclusion than most of us regarding what is considered "protest" and what is considered "disruptive intimidation tactics".
To be sure, intimidation is very "American" in the sense that groups that can't get their way through discourse or negotiation often will use intimidation to quell dissent or disrupt others who are trying to get something accomplished.
However, to say that we have a history that includes disruptive tactics is not the same as saying that it is "American" to do so. The quintessential element of being "American" is precisely that which you dismiss, which is our set of values as a nation, as set forth in the Declaration and the Constitution.
Among these many values is one that it is uniquely "American": the ability granted by the 1st Amendment to peacefully and respectfully assemble (and yes, protest) to discuss our problems and differences as fellow citizens.
Therefore, your post here denies that fundamental value. It says that anything goes; because there have been disruptive intimidation tactics used in the past, it is fine to use them now. But Pelosi and Hoyer were pointing out that from the standpoint of our most fundamental values as Americans, to do so is singularly "un-American". They do not deny the right to do so, they simply point out that it flies in the face of what America represents.
Beg to differ.
They are not exercising their first amendment rights. They are not engaged in political speech. They are not engaged in meaningful or intentional discourse of any kind.
They are mobs formed at the location town-hall meetings. They cloak themselves in the first amendment in order to deny citizens their first amendment rights.
Denying citizens their constitutionally protected first amendment rights is indeed unamerican. Doing so under a flimsy and patently false patina of exercising first amendment rights does not make it American. That they are, at least in part, the result of the government agents, in the form of Republican Congress-members makes them not only unamerican but unconstitutional; exactly what the first amendment was designed to prohibit; the government denying citizens politcal speech and associations. The fact that Republicans try to hide their obvious association does not mitigate their involvement.
We are always so eager to give lies the same weight as truths as if false equivalences were indeed real to the point where all to many Americans seem no longer capable of logical or even rational thought.
I thin that is is very patriotic to carry signs around the country calling the President Hitler. Shows how great the educational system is in this country.
You know, with the people who are disrupting and keeping others from speaking, being all educated and up on the facts and stuff.
A bow to the home-schooling crowd, eh?
The difference between being heard and making sure no one is heard is huge. Especially at an event specifically designated for communication between representatives and the people.
Factor in also, that the claims of the 'protesters' were not only factually false, but were geared to intentionally misinform. Protesting is American. Lying to prevent a dialogue on policy in not protesting.
Given all that, its hard to argue in this context what the shouters were doing was patriotic.
Dissent and protest are 100% American, but using one's own First Amendment right to free speech to shout down and interfere with someone else's free speech is intimidation, and a perversion of the Constitution.
Is absolutely UN-AMERICAN. Period. Free speech without responsibility is synonymous with anarchy.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
