Rob's Rants

A recent incident has highlighted for me the increasing divide between me and the Republican party. Now, I’ve never identified myself as purely Republican — I’ve registered as an Independent in the three states where I’ve been registered to vote — but I tend to resonate with what I consider the basic principles of the modern conservative movement. Unfortunately, it seems that the Republican party is abandoning these ideals in what seems to be a vague hope of creating a core of highly motivated, though misguided, activists. In short, I think the Republicans are selling out the most conservative of conservative values while trying to gather enough angry, mostly white men and women, to bring home an election. How shameful.

The core principles of conservatism that I hold are these:

• Limited government. Following Henry David Thoreau’s maxim “That government is best which governs least,” I feel strongly that government, particularly on the Federal level, should provide for the people only that which we cannot provide for ourselves (the common defense, etc.) and should avoid unnecessary regulation (can anyone say FCC decency standards).
• Individual liberty and freedoms should be guaranteed at all costs. This includes unwavering support for the Bill of Rights and a strong leaning toward local control. It also requires a constant vigilance to ensure that the rights of minorities in society are not trampled by the whims of the majority. (Yes, I think Republicans are on the wrong side of the gay marriage debate also).
• The power exercised by the Government and by agents of the Government (i.e. the police) should be tightly checked. In any dispute between a citizen and the government, deference must be given to the citizen (i.e., guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, innocent until proven guilty, etc.)

These principles are easy to discuss in the abstract and theoretical world, but as always, the difficulty is in applying them in the complex world in which we live. And this is another characteristic of the conservative movement with which I identify: the understanding that we live in a complex and dynamic world and that our application of principle must evolve to meet new realities as they appear. Adherence to principle without a willingness to bend to reality is to be a zealot. And modern zealots are so named because of what happened to the original lot.

What really started me thinking about this recently was Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. in Cambridge, MA on disorderly conduct charges. Many so-called conservative pundits have come down on the side of supporting officer James Crowley. Unfortunately, my conservative principles put me squarely at odds with this interpretation;  I believe that officer Crowley acted wrongly in arresting Professor Gates.

First, the Professor Gates arrest because this is a pretty clear-cut case for me. Most pundits have seized on the allegations of racism against officer Crowley lodged by Professor Gates and are using this as a way to impugn his character. But this misses the mark — the central issue in this case is not whether officer Crowley is a racist or a bigot or acted as he did because of racial profiling or prejudice. It’s not even whether such profiling is endemic to the Cambridge police department. Nor does it matter whether Professor Gates cries racism at every perceived slight. There is no evidence which I have seen which leads me to believe officer Crowley is in any way a bigot, and no account of the events which show that he acted in a racially motivated way. Professor Gates’ allegations may be unsubstantiated, hurtful, improper, wrong, and maybe even libelous. But what’s at issue here is his right to make them. This is as clear-cut a free speech case as we have seen in years and no one on the conservative side seems to be picking up on it. What we have is a case where Professor Gates had established that he was in his home. And then he was arrested for remarks made to an officer. He was not arrested for failure to obey or resisting arrest. He was arrested for disorderly conduct. For shouting at the officer that he was a racist. For one to be arrested in (or on the porch of) their own home for using the purest form of speech (one’s own voice) to express displeasure with the Government (as represented by the police) is a violation of the First Amendment of the highest order. What was said doesn’t matter. Professor Gates had every right to say it without fear of Government reprisal (arrest). The actions of the officer were absolutely wrong in this case.

My problem with the current state of discussion and with Republicanism in general is that the party has become the socially conservative, law & order, go-to-church party. And the blind deference to Government authority in the form of unquestioning support for cops flies in the very face of the basic conservative principle of checking the power of the Government. From the accounts I’ve read, officer Crowley arrived to investigate a burglary. As he investigated this report he had every reason to demand some ID from the people on the porch. However, once it was established that Professor Gates lived in the residence, and that there was no reason to prevent his entrance (i.e. a restraining order, etc.) the investigation was over. From that moment on, Officer Crowley’s duty was to withdraw immediately. As soon as Professor Gates expressed displeasure with the officer’s presence, the officer was trespassing, for no reasonable suspicion of additional crimes could be present. At this point, Professor Gates is a citizen, not a suspect, and officer Crowley represents the Government, and I don’t care what Professor Gates called or shouted at the officer, it is not possible that it rose to the level of an arrestable offence. As Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick said, in one of the most level-headed remarks of this whole story, “… I guess I would say you ought to be able to raise your voice in your own house without risk of arrest.”

It’s surely a shame when one of the most liberal governors of one of the most liberal states expresses a view much more in tune with conservative principles than Rush Limbaugh.

This content is published under the Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Please click link for information.

No related posts.