WILL PEOPLE CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED?

Some Americans have begun to speak of the USA as a failing nation.  I don’t agree. Our internal divisions are nothing new; they have persisted throughout our history. We succeed because most of us remain committed to working out our differences for the common good. We are justifiably worried about anarchy and terrorism, but they too have always been present. From the British point of view, our Revolutionary War heroes were domestic terrorists.  From the point of view of many colonists, the war was a justified and necessary step toward freedom.  The principal difference between terrorism and a “just war” is which side you are on.

Anarchy and terrorism lost when colonists created a new government based on “the consent of the governed”.  Within it they argued, debated and compromised to create something that the great majority of them would support.  That kind of political struggle is at the core of “consent of the governed”.  Our constitution protects the rights of individuals over the wishes and whims of majorities but our government is strong enough to make laws for the public good. That balance makes consent of the governed possible.

Terrorism emerges when extremely angry people who don’t get what they want through politics decide to use violence instead. An early example was the whiskey rebellion of 1791. Congress levied a tax on distilled spirits to pay off war debts. Farmers who made whiskey from their surplus corn were so opposed to the tax that they banded together and killed tax collectors. President George Washington personally led an army of 13,000 to put down the rebellion and enforce the law.  Our civil war, the biggest threat the nation has faced, was organized by slaveholders because they knew they were losing their political struggle to preserve slavery.

Americans’ ever-changing attitudes bring debate, conflict and changed laws. There was violence (terrorism) in opposition to the constitutional amendment that allowed women to vote. Our electorate was once dominated by religious extremists who passed laws to ban birth control and racially segregate society. As attitudes and beliefs changed, those laws have been repealed or found unconstitutional. The same can be said of the Prohibition Amendment that banned alcoholic beverages. Examples of terrorists in those causes include organized criminal gangs (alcohol) and KKK (segregation). 20th century arguments over civil rights, union rights, abortion rights, and the Viet Nam War brought violence and uncountable deaths.  As the issues were addressed some very angry people resorted to violence.

We shouldn’t expect today’s challenges to be easier than those faced by prior generations. Terrorists continue to attack both freedom and the government that protects it.  A majority of us now see marriage equality as a right, and our Supreme Court has determined that it is protected by our Constitution. That change was preceded by decades of homophobic violence. In 1973, women gained the legal right to control their own bodies, including the right to make their own decisions about ending a pregnancy. “Lone wolf” terrorist Eric Rudolph bombed the Atlanta Olympics to protest abortion rights and government protection of homosexuals. Timothy McVeigh, a “Christian” white supremacist, bombed the Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City as revenge for government support of civil rights.

Today we still have angry people who think their needs are not being addressed.   That includes Americans who lack adequate education and skills. They face a bleak economic outlook; suffer from depression and die younger than previous generations. Many African-Americans think that new voting laws are designed to reduce their influence. Some religious conservatives say their nation has been stolen by a majority that won’t accept literal interpretation of scripture as a basis for laws. Readers can probably add to the list of reasons why people are angry. In Biloxi, Mississippi a restaurant customer was enraged when a waitress told him that smoking was not allowed.  He shot her dead on the spot.  She might be angry too if she could talk to us.

So much anger makes it difficult to listen, to understand, and to accept our differences.  It also feeds the desire to control others through laws or violence rather than nurturing the individual freedoms that we cherish. Our “culture war” will continue in legislatures, courtrooms, and in our streets. Yes, there is terrorism, but there is also hope.  I remain optimistic that we will listen, learn, acknowledge our differences; and then find sufficient agreement for future “consent of the governed”.  Then we can move on to argue about another set of issues.  It’s what Americans do.

 

3 thoughts on “WILL PEOPLE CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED?”

  1. There is much in you latest post that I agree with, but I have a nagging feeling that this time is different because we are living when the fabric of our global social structure is in disarray. This time, it is not just our relationships with each other that are frayed. Beneath that, our relationship with the natural world is frayed as well. Our global industrial society has demanded more resources from the planet than it can effectively provide and dumped more of our wastes than natural systems can absorb or recycle.

    That nagging feeling of mine is that human nature and all of our cognitive biases and glitches are making it very difficult to confront the challenges of balancing our demands with the limitations of the natural world when our social world is filled with people suffering from food insecurity, people lacking jobs that have a real purpose and too many young people without work of any kind. There are the roots of ‘terrorism’. It seems unlikely that we can solve our social problems until we begin to make progress in solving our natural problems.

    Much is made of the rate of change in our time. But I think of my grandparents who were born into an agrarian nation powered by their own muscles and those of domesticated animals. They lived through world wars and depressions to see men walk on the moon in an age of unexpected affluence. They lived through more change, but much of the change they saw resulted in greater affluence. The change of our day is accompanied with hype and glitter, but seems to be less meaningful than the hyperbole and leading to declines in affluence. People are generally suspicious of change, but especially so during times of decline. In our nation, both the Tea Party and Occupy Movement are motivated by these changes. But they see different causes and markedly different solutions.

    So, can we learn to work together quickly enough to meet these challenges? Maybe. It will take leadership unlike the kind we have witnessed in recent decades. Our political leaders benefit more to worsening our problems than to seeking solutions. Contemporary journalism profits from conflict instead of exposing problems, spreading real information or calling for meaningful action. Yet, there are people and small groups working on levels from local to global accomplishing results that can be used as templates for positive change. Increasingly there are wealthy and powerful individuals who have awakened to our real challenges are committing capital to confronting those challenges. I hope that we fight the good fight and forge a good future, but I still have that nagging feeling that we may be doing too little and doing it too late. If that is true, the natural world will enact its own regime of change.

Comments are closed.