Societies have their rules, formal and informal. When people break those rules they often have to face society’s outrage. In the United States, one of the most strongly adhered to informal rules is respect for the “office of the Presidency”. So strong is that rule that it applies even to a President who has committed war crimes and has national approval ratings in the 20s. Even some liberals who are totally disgusted with what George Bush has done to our country believe that a certain amount of respect for the “office of Presidency” ought to be shown.
Peer pressure associated with these rules can be enormous, and can therefore cloud our thinking when we attempt to evaluate the actions of a person who breaks the rules. For that reason, I often find it useful to consider historical parallels when evaluating such actions.
This post discusses in chronological order what I consider to be five historical actions which have much in common with the actions of Iraqi TV reporter Muntazer al-Zaidi, who
threw his shoes at George W. Bush during Bush’s recent visit to Iraq. None of these actions are absolute parallels. Yet I believe that they all have a great deal in common, and between them they exhibit great similarity to what al-Zaidi did.
Discussion of these historical parallels would be much more useful, in my opinion, in a public school setting than on DU. But I am not a school teacher, and even if I was, I probably wouldn’t be one for very long after holding this discussion with my students.
George WashingtonIn 1775, the British colonists in North America began a violent rebellion against their mother country. George Washington was chosen to lead the rebellion, as
Commander-in-Chief. Washington’s role was crucial. Without his leadership the rebellion, if undertaken at all, would probably have been unsuccessful and ended with most of its leaders being executed for treason.
Washington, as well as the other colonial leaders, did in fact commit treason. But the following year they drew up a document that explained and rationalized their acts. The relevant part
read:
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government…
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes…But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
These principles are well accepted by most of the world today – at least in theory. But at the time, it was considered treason, and would have been treated as such had the former colonists not won their war.
What Washington’s actions have in common with that committed by al-Zaidi is that they were violent actions taken against what both Washington and al-Zaidi considered to be tyrannical occupying governments. The main difference is that Washington’s actions were much more violent than were al-Zaidi’s, and Washington had a whole army behind him. In that respect, al-Zaidi’s actions were much less extreme than were Washington’s, but perhaps more courageous at the same time.
The rebel slaves aboard the AmistadIn 1839, 53 African slaves aboard the slave ship
Amistad were en route to their new job on a Caribbean plantation. On July 1st they
rebelled, killing the ship’s captain and cook, and ordered the remaining crew to sail to Africa. But two months later, the ship was seized off of the U.S. coast, and the Africans were imprisoned in Connecticut on charges of murder.
Ironically, the man who
defended them in court was a former U.S. President, John Quincy Adams:
For 8 ½ hours, the 73-year-old Adams passionately and eloquently defended the Africans' right to freedom on both legal and moral grounds, referring to treaties prohibiting the slave trade and to the Declaration of Independence.
Adams’ heroic efforts were successful, and 35 of the Africans were allowed to return to Africa. The others died while awaiting trial or at sea.
The actions of these slaves were very similar in principle (thought more urgently needed) to the actions of Washington and the other colonial leaders. The slaves even used the exact same document in their defense as did Washington and the other colonial leaders.
The similarities and differences between the slaves’ and al-Zaidi’s actions were very similar to the similarities and differences between Washington’s and al-Zaidi’s actions.
Claus Schenk Graf von StauffenbergOn July 20, 1944, a Lieutenant Colonel in the German Army by the name of Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg
attempted to assassinate Adolf Hitler by means of a bomb hidden inside his suitcase. Devising an excuse to leave a meeting at Hitler’s headquarters in East Prussia, von Stauffenberg left his suitcase with the hidden bomb under the table in the meeting room as he exited the meeting. The bomb exploded shortly thereafter, but it failed to kill Hitler, and the plot to take control of the German military soon unraveled. Von Stauffenberg was arrested, brutally tortured, and then executed.
A primary motive for von Stauffenberg’s participation in the plot was to put an end to World War II. Had the assassination attempt succeeded, that war would most likely have ended several months sooner than it did, thereby sparing millions of lives and the physical destruction of much of Germany.
Thus van Stauffenberg’s motives were similar to al-Zaidi’s in that they both involved outrage over what they considered to be a needless and terribly destructive war. The main difference was that van Stauffenberg’s actions were intended to be much more definitive than al-Zaidi’s – though they failed.
Rosa ParksOn December 1, 1955,
Rosa Parks, a black seamstress, committed a taboo act and broke a local law by refusing to give up her seat to a white passenger on a Montgomery, Alabama bus – an act for which she was arrested and fined.
Parks’ arrest spurred a wave of protests and a boycott of the city bus line in Montgomery that lasted over a year. By bringing attention to the plight of African-Americans living in the South, Parks’ act stirred our nation’s sympathies and began what many consider to be the start of the Civil Rights movement in the United States.
Some may object to my seeing a parallel between Parks’ act and that of al-Zaidi, in that her act was non-violent. But the principle behind it was similar. George Bush tries very hard to minimize reaction against his war of aggression and illegal occupation by posing as a “liberator” of the Iraqi people, rather than their oppressor and mass murderer. Acts such as what al-Zaidi did threaten to call world-wide attention to the fact that the Iraqi people see the invasion and current occupation of Iraq in very different terms than George Bush and Dick Cheney would like us to see it. It is acts like that which, if given enough publicity or repeated enough times, could alter the course of events in Iraq by helping to turn world and U.S. opinion against the U.S. occupation. It is unlikely that al-Zaidi’s action will be as effective as what Rosa Parks did – but you never know.
Cynthia McKinneySince respect for “the office of the Presidency” seems to be such a big issue with respect to the shoe-throwing incident, that action brings Cynthia McKinney to mind. Nobody in the U.S. Congress has shown more disrespect for George Bush than former U.S. Representative McKinney. Indeed, it is fair to say that her words about him in this
2002 speech “crossed a line” that many Americans consider sacred, especially with regard to his role in the 9/11 attacks on our country:
I'm most proud of my work to hold this Administration accountable to the American people. And after I've asked the tough questions, here's what we now know:
That President Bush was warned that terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and crash them into buildings in the US…. (She then lists many more suspicious circumstances)….
All of this has become public knowledge since I asked the simple question: What did the Bush Administration know and when did it know it. Now against this backdrop of so many unanswered questions, President Bush wants us to pledge our blind support to him. First, for his war on terrorism and now for his war in Iraq. How can we, in good conscience, prepare to send our young men and women back to Iraq to fight yet another war…
“Cross a line” indeed. McKinney’s House seat was targeted by the Republican Party in 2002. She lost that election, but won it back in 2004. Her seat was targeted again in 2006, and she again lost her seat – but not before
bringing articles of impeachment against George Bush to the floor of the House of Representatives.
McKinney’s and al-Zaidi’s actions were similar in that they were both meant as protests against George Bush’s illegal Iraq War and occupation. McKinney’s courageous actions against the President of the United States were non-violent and more “proper” than those of al-Zaidi. But McKinney, as a U.S. Congresswoman, had the opportunity – which al-Zaidi did not – to bring widespread attention to Bush’s misdeeds without resorting to physical aggression. Had she held no special powers, perhaps she would have thrown her shoe at him.
Conclusion – and thoughts on “respect for the office of the Presidency of the United States” What all these actions have in common is that they were directed against what the perpetrators (or heroes) considered to be a tyrannical person or organization, at great risk to their career or physical safety. Some were much more violent than al Zaidi’s action, and others weren’t physically violent at all. But the purposes were similar – to fight against tyranny.
Many have objected to al-Zaidi’s action largely on the basis that it shows a “lack of respect for the office of the Presidency of the United States”. But the “office of the Presidency” deserves no respect in the abstract. It is a job. Perhaps it is the most important job in the world. But the respect shown to the person who holds it is contingent upon – or
should be contingent upon – the manner in which that person carries out the responsibilities of the office. If the office is abused, then the abuser deserves no respect for merely holding the office.
I heard a mighty powerful speech today, by U.S. Representative
Elijah Cummings (D-MD), which touched on the inappropriateness of showing respect for “offices”. Cummings spoke of the time when he rushed to the hospital to see his dying father. By the time he arrived, his father was dead. Grief-stricken, Cummings asked to see the body, but he was brushed away by hospital staff – told to go sit down. A few minutes later, a friend or acquaintance arrived and addressed him as “Congressman”. Overhearing that, the same hospital staff who had just recently brushed him away reversed course and made a big deal over him, escorting him to see the body of his deceased father. Cummings commented to the audience about how sad it is that some people are unable to see a person’s humanity until they find out that he’s “important”.
I’ll tell you what
real respect for the office of the Presidency would be. Real respect for that office would be to
remove from office a war criminal who had repeatedly abused his office. By failing to do that, the U.S. House of Representatives demonstrated a lot more disrespect for the office of the Presidency and its obligations than did al-Zaidi.
Indeed, the founding document of our nation said as much by noting that it is the
duty of a people to throw off and replace abusive governments. And our Founding Fathers further made that point by meticulously trying to balance the power of the chief executive and by providing a peaceable means for his impeachment and removal from office.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
