As efforts escalate, protesters must keep the disobedience civil

In July of 1846, Concord authorities noticed that Henry David Thoreau had not been… In July of 1846, Concord authorities noticed that Henry David Thoreau had not been paying his poll tax. It wasn’t that he didn’t have the money, he simply declined to pay. His refusal – based in staunch disapproval of slavery and the Mexican War – landed him in jail. As the story goes, Thoreau’s good friend Ralph Waldo Emerson stopped by, wondering, “Henry, what are you doing in there?”

His response: “Ralph, what are you doing out there?”

Thoreau’s brief imprisonment inspired him to write “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” a text that would go on to become the driving force behind nonviolent protests worldwide and influence reformers such as Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. Over the decades, disobeying unjust laws has developed a rich and storied history, complete with a fair share of notable names and causes.

On Thursday, war protesters who sought to add their own cause to the list hosted a “die-in” on New York City’s busy Fifth Avenue. According to the Associated Press, a group calling itself “M27” organized the protest. The method: encourage demonstrators to lie on their backs in the middle of the street. The goal: disrupt traffic and draw attention to the anti-war effort. The title: a “day of civil disobedience.”

The use of that term in this instance is more revolutionary than the demonstrators had intended. It’s part of a turning point in the process; remarkable because it illustrates how the peace movement in America has taken civil disobedience and made it uncivil. Protest violence is nothing new – a scuffle with police here, a broken window there, maybe an occasional riot – but those incidents are generally on the fringe; the product of high tensions in large numbers.

When M27 essentially – and deliberately – tried to shut down America’s largest city, doing so in the name of “civil” disobedience, it crossed an important line. It provided an answer to the question that all avid peace protesters must now face – what do you do when, after screaming your lungs out, you watch your pleas continually fall on deaf ears? The answer in this case: you stop talking and start acting.

This is not to say that protesters who block streets are in the right. Thursday’s “die-in” is fundamentally different from Thoreau’s imprisonment in that it was not a direct refutation of the problem. It was a temper tantrum; the frustrated backlash of a child who can’t get his way.

And protesters will continue not to get their way, no matter how many signs they paint or how many rallies they hold. President Bush has support, not only from Congress – complete with Democrats – but from the American people. According to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, 72 percent of Americans are supportive of the war effort, while 26 percent are opposed. The opposition is now experiencing what Alexis de Tocqueville once termed “the omnipotence of the majority.” Like it or not, most Americans support this war, so President Bush has no reason to doubt his resolve.

If Thursday’s events are any indication of things to come, the American peace movement presents some cause for concern. One protester, Johannah Westmacott, explained M27’s actions – and subsequently, the problem – very concisely: “Nothing else gets attention. It’s not news when people voice their opinions.”

Which brings us back to de Tocqueville, and the completion of the quotation mentioned above. When examining the American system for weaknesses, the Frenchman found one: “If freedom is ever lost in America, that will be due to the omnipotence of the majority driving the minorities to desperation and forcing them to appeal to physical force.”

Today this statement is more relevant than ever, burning in its ambiguity. It makes no mention of right or wrong, and assumes no value judgment except to say that minorities may become violent if the majority leaves them no other option.

On Thursday, the minority – the peace movement – began to show signs of such desperation. Their cause is dedicated and passionate, but has no hope of success. So, under the guise of “civil” disobedience, they take their efforts to the next level, disrupting daily life to force their view and to recapture the freedom that has been denied them by the majority. Then, when they find that more aggressive measures fail to stop the war – and rest assured, they will fail – new efforts may be in the works.

In October 1859, John Brown, with applause from Henry David Thoreau, took violent action against slavery and demonstrated what can happen when civil disobedience can’t achieve the desired effect. The circumstances today are extremely different, but the passion is the same, and there remains a mindset that anyone outside the prison bars is in the wrong. It’s hard to say what will come after blocking traffic gets tired, but something will come, and we can only hope the peace movement carries out its functions with its ideal peace always in mind.

Eric Miller favors peace and supports Bush. He can be reached at miller@pittnews.com.