“All we say to America is, ‘Be true to what you said on paper’… Somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for right!”
Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. uttered these words in his final speech, which he delivered on April 3, 1968. King was in Memphis, Tennessee, to lead a march on behalf of that city’s striking sanitation workers. These workers — who overwhelmingly were Black — were fighting for better working conditions, higher pay … and basic respect. Fifty-two years later, that fight remains for virtually all low-wage workers. Fortunately, it appears that the pandemic has caused many Americans to appreciate the indispensable roles that such workers play in our society. (Perhaps history will conclude that this crisis created a catalytic effect that resulted in America giving these workers their due.)
In saying that he had “read somewhere” about the rights that he enumerated, King was making a rhetorical gesture in reference to the First Amendment of the Constitution. Ratified 229 years ago, this amendment (in theory) has afforded Americans the right not only to assemble peacefully, but also to associate with those who share our interests. King spoke to the fact that there is a man-made gap between the rhetoric and the reality. Still, it is no accident that this amendment is the concrete in the foundation of our unalienable rights. Along with the right to vote, freedom of speech and assembly are the sine qua non of democracy.
Unfortunately, it has always been the case that too few Americans are outraged about the abridgement of said rights — unless it directly affects them. Similarly, too many Americans value and support these and other rights only to the extent that they perceive that the exercise thereof is their personal privilege. The most recent example of these phenomena can be witnessed in the spate of rallies that protest stay-at-home orders in various states. (Tell me how you feel about Colin Kaepernick’s nonviolent protests against police brutality and I’ll tell you how you feel about the gun-toting protesters who oppose stay-at-home orders that protect their own health.)
The anti-stay-at-home rallies have been conducted with the tacit (if not explicit) approval of President Trump. The protesters are angry that the orders keep them from living their lives as they normally would. Some have even hyperbolically referred to such orders as government “tyranny.” While they tend to be strong supporters of the president, their actions do not necessarily align them with their fellow Republicans as a whole. (A recent poll by Politico revealed that 72% of Republicans want to continue social distancing.)
Predictably, high-profile supporters of the protests — and, by extension, of President Trump — have engaged in very disturbing and grossly inaccurate comparisons of the protesters to civil rights icons. (That is one reason that I began this column with a quote from King.) In general, these protesters and their cheerleaders are diametrically opposed to the principles on which the Civil Rights Movement was based.
For example, Stephen Moore, who is a long-time advisor to President Trump, ridiculously compared the protesters to Rosa Parks, who is “the mother of the Civil Rights Movement.” Not surprisingly, Moore is the same individual who publicly laughed at the notion that Trump’s first action as president would be to “kick a Black family out of public housing” (i.e., to kick President Obama and his family out of the White House).
The comparison of these protesters to Parks purposely ignores the fact that, unlike as was the case with African Americans during the Civil Rights Movement, the government is not immorally abrogating these protesters’ rights. And to the extent that stay-at-home orders (which are temporary) do curtail certain rights, the governors who enact them certainly do not do so based upon race. Further, the dignity of these protesters is not being compromised. Their bodies are not being attacked by police officers or dogs. Their humanity is not being questioned. Most importantly, their lives are not being threatened.
Of course, the advocacy of people like Moore is not aimed at the Black beneficiaries of heroes like Parks or King. His audience is composed primarily of disaffected working-class whites who feel aggrieved due to their having largely been left out of American prosperity for the past 40 years (and their angst at the nation’s racial and cultural changes). While their economic anxiety is valid, their attributing their concerns to people of color — people who are fighting for the freedom that they take for granted — is not.
As has been frequently stated, equality looks like oppression to those who are not accustomed to sharing power. The monumental social and cultural shifts that America is underdoing feel to them like a zero-sum game in which they (i.e., working- and middle-class whites) are on the losing end. (This is why, for example, the NRA falsely claims that it is “the nation’s oldest civil rights organization.”) Equally as important, these purveyors of racial strife cynically co-opt the language of civil rights and the plight of African Americans without actually supporting the steps that would remedy such inequality.
This is analogous to what theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer referred to as “cheap grace” as compared to “costly grace.” In essence, Bonhoeffer argues that strictly practicing Christian discipleship (e.g., self-denial) is the “costly grace” that believers must pay in order to honor the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. By contrast, “cheap grace,” in Bonhoeffer’s estimation, is that which “costs” Christians nothing; it is taking Christ’s sacrifice for granted. In short, Moore and his fellow-travelers wrap themselves in the rhetoric of struggle, but nakedly shun the reality of racial oppression. To borrow biblical language, they are not prepared to be “one with us in our suffering.”
To be clear, I’m not writing to criticize these individuals for exercising their right to assemble peacefully. (I can mentally and emotionally separate the exercising of their rights from the motivation thereof.) However, it is clear that no matter how just or noble the cause, there is not a single city, town, municipality or hamlet in America wherein armed Black folks can storm government property while being secure in the knowledge that they won’t be confronted with force — likely of the deadly variety. If you want to exercise your rights, don’t tell us that our doing the same is wrong.
Larry Smith is a community leader. Contact him at larry@leaf-llc.com.
