Observing events since the 2024 Presidential election and coverage of those events in all types of media makes one point very evident...
...Americans are not grasping the full extent of the risk posed to their rights and very lives as a result of the wholesale gutting of legal and social norms.
Civil Disobedience?
As one example of this failure of language and understanding, consider the coverage of protests against ICE in Los Angeles or the interactions with federal "authorities" experienced by a sitting US Senator or a city comptroller in New York City. Thousands of people have turned out in Los Angeles for over a week to protest commando-style raids by un-uniformed, un-badged and often MASKED people claiming to be "federal agents" on restaurants and hardware stores, claiming to be aimed at rounding up illegal workers. US Senator Alex Padilla, representing the state of California, was treated like an active shooter threat after he had the temerity to ask DHS Secretary Kristi Noem a question during her press conference. Padilla was dragged out, forced to the ground face-down and cuffed DESPITE the fact he was escorted TO this press conference by the same agents who dragged him out, DESPITE the fact the press conference was held inside a federal building that required a security scan prior to entry and DESPITE the fact he had an appointment THAT AFTERNOON to meet with Noem on the federal presence in his state. In NYC, the comptroller was appearing with defendants appearing in federal immigration court, he escorted a defendant out of the courtroom after the judge dismissed the man's case, was accosted by ICE agents attempting to arrest the man on charges related to those just thrown out by the judge, then was ARRESTED when he had the temerity to ask the ICE agents to display a warrant for their arrest of the man.
In "analysis" of these events in the media, some discussions have drawn comparisons between these current struggles and civil disobedience campaigns of the past. Such comparisons are a direct sign that the media and those consuming it are completely failing to understand current events.
America has a long history of civil disobedience being used as a mechanism for bringing about crucial social and legal changes. The key behind the entire philosophy of civil disobedience lies in the very word disobedience. Civil disobedience relies upon citizens publicly violating CURRENT LAWS in order to draw attention to the inherent unfairness / immorality of those laws and to do so in numbers that refute conventional wisdom that only a few want those laws changed.
When the society has laws that require separate bathrooms, separate drinking fountains, separate seating, etc. for people of a particular race or denies protections under the law from people of a certain race, civil disobedience campaigns would focus on explicitly BREAKING those laws and restrictions and peacefully submitting to arrest and possible trial and conviction under current interpretations of the law.
Using civil disobedience successfully to create changes in a corrupt, morally tilted society takes enormous courage and those using such techniques have moved the country forward consistently over the last hundred years. However, civil disobedience has ZERO bearing on current events. The motivations behind current protests are completely distinct from those that would drive civil disobedience. In the current environment, everyday citizens are not breaking the law. They are protesting the actions of elected and appointed officials in government who are breaking the law in ways that violate individual rights. Those involved in these events are LAW ABIDING CITIZENS attempting to exercise their rights to assembly, free speech and, in these cases, execute their role as an elected public official. Those actions are not civil disobedience, they are simply everyday actions of Americans and duties of elected public officials.
Reporters and commentators who describe current events in terms of civil disobedience are obfuscating what is really happening. For those inclined to support crackdowns, a civil disobedience narrative implicitly conveys that protesters ARE breaking some law and that framing serves as justification for ignoring the actual point of the protest rather than possibly learning something from it. For those inclined to support the underlying intent of the protest, linking the protest to "civil disobedience" understates the threats to enforcement of GOOD LAWS which pose threats to every American.
Rights?
Current events coverage also misleads the public in the language used regarding rights and disputes reaching courts. News stories and commentaries that involve debates over rights of citizens often have a patronizing, pseudo-educational tone somewhere between that of a "The More You Know" public service ad on TV and a mind-numbing mandatory training class taught by your HR department at work. These threads might begin with The Trump Administration is arresting and detaining Americans passing through Customs upon return to America from abroad without cause and without a hearing, a clear violation of their rights. As the dispute triggers eventual hearings and a judge orders the detention to end, the media might update the story as In a blow to the Administration, a judge ordered the release of X, citing the government's unlawful detention. The court has helped stop the erosion of American's rights.
This simple ping-pong, back-and-forth coverage doesn't convey what is actually happening.
In a prior world where the law was respected or at least feared, even by people who occasionally broke it accidentally or intentionally, a court order blocking action A against person X would also serve to block the government from taking that same action A against person Y or Z. In post-America, every single head of every single department within the federal government has demonstrated ZERO fealty to written laws and precedents and ONE HUNDRED PERCENT fealty to any whim uttered by Trump. Ditto for the Republicans in the House and Senate who could stop this nonsense in a day but are silent. And these whims can change every day based on whoever was the last, most recent person to talk to Trump about an issue. A ruling from a court means absolutely nothing in this climate.
This lawlessness on the part of the GOVERNING, not the GOVERNED, has crucial implications Americans must understand going forward. It is obviously the case that any tactics adopted by those opposing MAGA insanity cannot assume legal challenges alone – even those resulting in favorable rulings in court – will stop undesired actions from continuing. Losing a battle in court over action A in one jurisdiction has absolutely no bearing on what MAGA adherents in positions of power at federal, state or local levels will do in other jurisdictions. No doesn't mean "no" everywhere, it just means "try to catch me again."
A less obvious implication of this lawlessness must also be understood by individual Americans as they ponder their own activities. Again, in this climate, written rights mean NOTHING in the absence of law enforcement and judicial systems that follow laws and precedents. For individual Americans encountering law enforcement at any level ANYWHERE in the country, the likelihood of a "bad" outcome has arguably risen materially and the possible "floor" of behavior from law enforcement officials has gone down, if for no other reason than the adoption of tactics where officials do not wear uniforms, refuse to show identification and use unmarked vehicles. This makes individual accountability for abuses of power even more difficult to obtain than it is in a world with qualified immunity. This increase in "bad encounter" probabilities will hold even in "left" leaning jurisdictions. There is always the worst 5-10 percent of a force that might have refrained in more strict times from abusing their power but, when signals have been sent from the President that knocking heads is okay and pardons for those knocking the "right" heads are likely, those inhibitions will vanish.
This calculus of decisions about personal actions in the face of opponents who violate the law at will to suit their goals is the REAL topic no one in America is discussing. As discussed earlier, the purpose of civil disobedience is to bring about changes in BAD laws by purposely, systematically VIOLATING those bad laws to trigger awareness and recognition of the need for change. It isn't clear if civil disobedience is remotely appropriate for combating an opponent who feels no obligation to consistently follow or enforce ANY law.
In this climate of lawlessness on the part of those doing the GOVERNING rather than of those being GOVERNED, how long do the governed wait as those doing the governing distort the levers of power to their will? Where is the point of no return? There are zero examples in history where a nation has flirted with fascism or authoritarianism only briefly then bounced back via democratic means to a prior non-authoritarianism state of existence. There's a pretty good reason for that. Authoritarians feel no obligation to obey laws or norms and will do anything to retain and enlarge their power. Democracy only works when all factions attempting to win control still obey the law when they lose and when winning factions protect election integrity to allow future changes in control.
Stated more bluntly, in the face of a lawless opponent who is bent on destroying concepts of precedent and equal protection under the law, how and when do the glove comes off when combating such an opponent? Has that moment already been missed?
WTH
