Right-to-lifers in the blogosphere are vigorously debating this statement from The New Pantagruel encouraging civil disobedience in the matter.
Prescinding from the abstract moral questions regarding civil disobedience, from the purely practical point of view I would expect–I hope I would be wrong, but I would expect–that the result of any kind of forceful civil disobedience would be the demonization and marginalization of the movement against euthanasia.
The pro-life movement hoped in vain that civil disobedience campaigns such as Operation Rescue would eventually be recognized as being similar to those of the civil rights movement–humble citizens fighting for the rights of the weak against entrenched power. They were right in principle. But the all-important difference is the attitude of the media, for which OR was a welcome opportunity to show the world that pro-lifers were a bunch of wackos. One movement’s humble citizen becomes another’s demented ignoramus. All mass movements have their wackos–I can assure you that from personal experience that the anti-Vietnam-war movement had more than its share of dishonest, deranged, and potentially or even actually violent people. But in general it was treated sympathetically by the press.
Here is a New Oxford book review I wrote a few years ago which dealt with the role played by the media in the civil rights movement and toys with the idea of what would have happened if that movement had been treated by the press as the anti-abortion movement has been.
However, there’s been a new development that might cause things to work out differently: the blogosphere. The iron grip of the mainstream media on the control of a story has been broken. "Gay pride" parades for instance, which have long been sanitized by the big media, now sometimes have their seamier side displayed on the Internet.So it might be possible for a c.d. movement disliked by the big media to get some kind of public relations foothold now that would have been impossible ten years ago.
–Maclin Horton
The purpose of civil disobedience should not be primarily one of good publicity, however nice that may be. The purpose should be to stop an injustice. Only those in Florida know if this is indeed a realistic hope, though a failed attempt is a witness in itself.
Additionally, the media has been browbeaten for religious illiteracy, anti-religious bias, and liberal bias. On precisely this light, PoynterOnline.com released a daily column today advising journalists of all the tricky nuances of the Schiavo case.
Glad to see Mr. Horton has not joined the host of hand-wringers playing the Southern Council of Churches to tNP’s MLK–or Stokely Carmichael as the case may be. Still, it is a sign mainly of other, more substantial fears and doubts that motivates people to say, there is no way forcible resistance could work. That is always said, but the thing about forcible resistance is that where there’s a will there’s a way. A mob of determined people can accomplish a great deal simply by occupying a building, blocking people, handcuffing themselves to fixtures. And direct action that’s not just reaction changes the direction and terms of a political situation. It may not have the ideal intended outcome–say, the sparing of TSS’s life and/or zero violence–but it will have a unique outcome that turns events on a new course.
Just to clarify: I’m certainly not saying “good publicity” should be the reason either to take or not take c.d. action in this case. I’m talking about the premises, or more accurately mere attitudes, which would likely be lodged in the mind of the general public after a c.d. event. I.e. “the right-to-life cause is noble” or “the right-to-life cause is lunacy.”
Also, I’m not arguing either way about whether c.d. is a good idea here, just speculating about what the broader impact would be.
Btw, one thing that comes through pretty clearly in that book I reviewed, which is about MLK’s campaign in Birmingham, was that King & co. were extremely conscious of playing to the media and shaping public perception. They picked Birmingham partly because they thought they would get an ugly reaction. Which Bull Connor et.al. stupidly delivered.
It is also worth noting that civil disobedience intended to change government rule is now classified as terrorism. Thus it matters greatly how major media portrays the event since they will portray it as the government sees it. An unfavorable portrayal can lead to an even less unfavorable trip narrow body of water south of Florida to an even less unfavorable destination.
Even discussing civil disobedience concerning a particular event, and in a positive light with even the lightest of nuance of intention to cause action, can be construed as conspiracy to commit terrorism. And there is not a court to which you can appeal such construing and its consequences.
The culture of death plays for keeps and has been continuously turning up the heat in the frog pot. American memories fade quickly, they can no longer remember tepid water, nor do they even recognize their current circumstance, nor is it intended that they shall.
A mob of people can accomplish a great deal if it is intended that they accomplish that great deal. Otherwise they too shall fade into another faded blog story of which there are already more than enough for the purpose.
One of the first principles of warfare is that there must be a reasonable chance of success. The culture war against the culture of death is no different.
Here is an excellent question from National Review’s blog, which has been doing by-the-minute coverage–since it’s so short I’m just going to post it rather than fool with link.
JUST CURIOUS [John J. Miller]
If somebody put a pistol to Schiavo’s head and pulled the trigger–you know, to give the “dying process” a little nudge–would the shooter be guilty of murder under Florida law?
Posted at 04:37 PM