How does it become a man to behave toward this American government to-day? I answer that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it.
-- Henry David Thoreau
Every day it becomes clearer that Thoreau's answer is the only basis for a genuinely effective resistance to the accelerating depredations of the Bush-Cheney regime. Disassociation, boycott, filibuster, strike -- call it what you will, but the Gandhian tag might be the best: "non-cooperation with evil."
-- Chris Floyd
The exhortation to not recognize the legitimacy of the Bush Administration is sound (as is much of the cry from the heart at how far we have fallen), but the appeal to Henry Thoreau is somewhat less so. Thoreau influenced the likes of Gandhi and King, but one might ask "what exactly did HT himself do?" Spend a night in some local jail, his aunt paying the taxes, a symbolic protest that in fact was a repeat of a lesser known situation. Just as his time at Walden was in no way a matter of some escape from civilization or anything, there is a flavor of playing a role here. The value of idealism is not going to be begrudged by me of all people, but let's be real here.
[Still, yeah, any hero is likely to be no saint. All three had their weaknesses, but HT just didn't earn his stripes like they did.]
In fact, this believer in nonviolence later was an important defender of John Brown and in no way thought the Civil War was illegitimate. War is bad, except when it's not. Fine enough really, but given Gandhi/King would surely shun the likes of Brown, pretty telling. Likewise, given he refused to pay a local tax, Thoreau's actions taken to a logical conclusion is really anarchy. In the real world, apart from his dreamy realm, this simply is not a sensible way of doing things. Or, rather, practical. True enough that some simply do not take part in politics at all, including voting, given the corruptness of the system. But, how many who cite Thoreau want us to go that far?
This is a useful question, since the "reality community" in particular should be honest about such things. Surely, rhetorical devices are not to be taken totally literally or fully on face value. This is why demands for apologies for stray "over the top" comments by Democrats are b.s. ... it is underlined by the fact many are deep down more true than not. Are we to take the Declaration of Independence, including the rhetoric used in the listing of abuses, as gospel from first to last? Such literalism is the downfall of various kinds of fundamentalists. Still, if we ignore the slave owning of Jefferson, or that the problem was not just the "king," problems arise. Same here.*
But, there is some middle ground ... you know, like not agreeing to a quickie wiretap law, or blithely confirming position after position, after a bit of dissent. Rehnquist aids a coup, give him an in effect self-picked (his own law clerk/pall bearer no less!) replacement. He's credible and all, so no reason not to vote for him, right? Assume the rules of the game are the same, and the other side won half the battle. In effect, "success" now becomes a pretty low bar, the latest apparently having an attorney general who admits waterboarding is torture. Pyrrhic victory, indeed! I simply do not agree with some, including the inspiration of this post, that we have gone to hell in a handbasket.
We have gone far enough to fear the heat all the same and a better line in the sand needs to be drawn. HT might be a useful source of inspiration, but others who did more than talk the talk (and not always consistently at that) might be helpful as well. They might tell ya that moving the goal posts, including form activists, helps the cause. The core of truth is there and the "extremists" can cry when the path taken is not as far as they like to go. But, since it is pretty far, we can be satisfied with it. Again, it is helpful to be well informed about the whole thing, including taking those sacred texts like Thoreau with just a smidgen of doubt.
Anyway, ever try to read Walden? Sheesh. I'm with some character in a young adult book [it was long ago, don't know the name] who tried to do so ... better left to someone who is stuck in a small cabin on the outskirts of a rich mentor's land.
---
* Case law also can be a matter of looking at principles and not facts, though in real life, facts should have some influence on the underlying law. Consider an important punitive damage case, which even supporters of the practice would admit arose from pretty bad facts. [The time lag is notable too ... over twenty years from the underlying event.] The "victim" in this case was a reckless driver, whose acts lead to the death of one, the permanent injury of another.
The driver (and passenger) at fault, of course, were unharmed. Their insurance agency, rejecting the advice of one of its own investigators (see facts in the opinion) took the case to trial, even though the victims wanted to settle for the amount of the policy (perhaps this was a red flag, given it was a low figure, and the accident led to death and major injury). Afterwards, the victims set up an agreement in which the "victims" would sue the insurance agency, but they would get nearly all the money.
The jury technically was concerned with the damages to the "victims," but knew when handing down the large award (the original concern of paying the amount in excess of the driver's original coverage was no longer an issue) who the true beneficiaries would be. Simply put, the big mean (out of state) insurance company is not quite the stereotypical bad guy here. And, the "victim" in large measure deserves the quotes.
Punitives benefit better litigants in other cases, but enough complications do arise to be wary of facts like these. BTW, note the opening sentence with its mention of "the measure of punishment" ... quite telling. Punishment is public and warrants more protection than civil damages.