Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”
Though it is far from pleasant to think about, I have come to the conclusion that we need to start to think about it, and in the most concrete of terms. What is “it”? Put most simply, self defense. But in our time, we need to consider, in advance, exactly what are we morally, physically, and emotionally prepared to do if necessary to protect ourselves against
1. Militant right wingers who take to the streets with weapons to dispute the results of an election
2. Persons already in office who will stand with the far right and against the legitimate winners of an election
3. Police forces and military services if they, or enough of their personnel, decide to stand with the far right – or if the persons mentioned in point 2 declare martial law.
The New York Daily News (I know, I know, but it’s the newest published opinion piece on the subject I could find; it is an opinions piece and any facts in it are easily confirmed; it’s by two teachers at distinguished universities; and it’s not guanopsychotic) has an article up called “What if Trump loses but refuses to leave the White House? We have to start to contemplate the possibility.” I concur. We – all of us, not just progressives, but all citizens – need to contemplate the possibility. The article lines up all the times, starting with 1804, that a defeated President (or serving Vice President) might have fought the results of the election, and didn’t. Some of them really were robbed, but all chose country over party and over self. That does not appear to have the slightest resemblance to Donald John Trump. What will we do? What CAN we do? We won’t even really know what we are up against unless it happens.
Aeon (if you haven’t heard of it, it’s a “registered charity committed to the spread of knowledge and a cosmopolitan worldview. Our mission is to create a sanctuary online for serious thinking,” although I would just call it an online magazine myself, posted an article by Jason Brennan titled “When the state is unjust, citizens may use justifiable violence.” He has the credentials to discuss this; he’s a professor of strategy, economics, ethics, and public policy at Georgetown University, and has a (new this year) book out called When All Else Fails: The Ethics of Resistance to State Injustice.
In the article he addresses principles we pretty well accept, going back to Thoreau, but also poses questions we might do well to consider ourselves, BEFORE we need the answers. He discusses the difference, for instance, between disobedience of a civic character which aims to change society and disobedience in the moment which aims to stop a specific act [of injustice.] He also discusses the different feelings we may have about an action depending on who is doing the action”
Here’s a philosophical exercise. Imagine a situation in which a civilian commits an injustice, the kind against which you believe it is permissible to use deception, subterfuge or violence to defend yourself or others. For instance, imagine your friend makes an improper stop at a red light, and his dad, in anger, yanks him out of the car, beats the hell out of him, and continues to strike the back of his skull even after your friend lies subdued and prostrate. May you use violence, if it’s necessary to stop the father? Now imagine the same scene, except this time the attacker is a police officer in Ohio, and the victim is Richard Hubbard III, who in 2017 experienced just such an attack as described. Does that change things? Must you let the police officer possibly kill Hubbard rather than intervene?
I’m not going to tell anyone what their ethics should be. But I find Brennan’s reasoning sound and convincing, and I have bookmarked the article for future reference, including future contemplation.I hope everyone will at least read it. He ends it by pointing out, with citations, that, at least in the United States, nonviolence as a civil rights weapon succeeded as well as it did at least partly because there had been earlier times when people of color did arm themselves, and did shoot [back] in self defense.
Frankly that scares the hell out of me. The Associated Press notes that in a period of eleven days in November, this happened twice: “[A] black man who drew a gun in response to a crime in the U.S. was shot to death by a white police officer after apparently being mistaken for the bad guy. One was an on-duty security office in uniform. The other was an active duty military man home on leave.
If I am conflicted between arming myself against violence and worrying that the fact I am armed will be used against me … how much more conflicted would I be if my skin were darker than a brown paper bag?
I don’t know the answer to that. I wish I did. And yet I am not sure I want to go through the process of finding out. As I said – it scares me.
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, the best I can think of to ask you is to follow all these people around – all these “Second Amendment people” – and do your best to prevent them from using their weapons. Especially from using them on people better than themselves. And I know that’s not enough. Better gun safety laws would be nice. But all the good legislation in the world is not going to protect us if those in authority scoff at the law.
The Furies and I will be back.
Cross posted to Care2 HERE.
10 Responses to “Everyday Erinyes #147”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I remember when I was much, much younger . . . and maybe too influenced by Mighty Mouse and Superman . . . I would envision myself jumping in to stop a school yard bully and being willing to smack him hard in the face. But my adult self has changed a bit . . . I would try the peaceful way first before moving to violence. Unfortunately, the peaceful way may not always be available, if the need is immediate. However, I flat out refuse to carry a weapon (not generally lawful in Canada anyway). It is really hard to know exactly what I would do until I am confronted. This certainly is a good piece to think on and book mark.
Hope you don’t mind, I activated your Care2 link.
No problem. Thought I did – glad it was something so easily fixed.
I really don’t know what a situation like this, if dt refused to leave the WH, would transpire in events to oust him. accordingly. Strait jacket maybe? Can you imagine?? I sure can’t !!
I would suggest nonviolence as the choice, and verbally intervening, as I’m too old to get in a physical confrontation. Sadly, too many killings have needlessly happened, much to my chagrin with grieving parents, & families and to communities.
I have seen an escalation of militarization of the police force, in recent years, where, imho, officers see a perceived threat, then act, by shooting, (regarding the situation.) Shooting is not the answer. I believe that it is a citizen’s right to speak up about injustices being done.
btw…I don’t carry, never have, never will. Though I do know several of my gal pals who are CCW. (carry/concealed weapon) at all times.
Excellent subject, thanks, Joanne for post.
In Brennan’s article (Aeon is on my computer’s opening page) he writes “In When All Else Fails: The Ethics of Resistance to State Injustice (2019), I argue instead that we may act defensively against government agents under the same conditions in which we may act defensively against civilians.” It is an interesting argument that, I also, hope never to have to see. I read, a while back, that if he refuses to leave the W.H., he will be bodily carried out by the armed forces. IN A STRAIGHT JACKET? I WANT TO SEE THE VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am guessing that if he looses the election, and tries to “stand my ground,” the next president will be sworn in and then, as Commander-in-Chief, will be able to command his removal by the armed forces.
I do not carry, do not expect to ever do so, hope I never become frightened, or threatened enough to ever want to. On the other hand, once we move to Florida, next year, I might have to rethink this…NAH!
You make an excellent point that his replacement, as soon as sworn in, will have authority to command the military – and Secret Service. That would certainly make for an unprecedentedly terrible transition, but it would be satisfactory. (Always provided he doesn’t declare martial law.)
I;m very impressed by Aeon. Glad you are regularly reading it.
Very – VERY scary scenario of what might happen if Twitler were to declare a “State of Emergency”
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/
Yes – as I said when I cited the pickup by AlterNet the other day, put on suspenders, because otherwise it will scare the pants off you. One of the reasons I thought this had to be brought up.
There you have it, Joanne, the ultimate litmus test for the American ethical conscience. Born out of a terrible concoction of a malignant narcissist going senile in the White House, a GOP not only displaying more Nazi characteristics by the day but also acting on them, and a rampant NRA effecting more people owning and carrying a gun than anywhere else in the world. What a terrible dilemma.
I can be very angry with my current government, but Down Under I don’t expect to have to make decisions like that soon, if ever. As a pacifist I would like to ask the Furies to refrain Americans from (further) arming themselves, but not from trying to prevent harm to others. The NRA will start pushing for stepping up arming citizens as soon as they see an opening for it, creating an even greater divide and ultimately having the US end in utter chaos and people afraid of their shadow because it might be concealed carrying.
I won’t be arming any time soon, I promise. So far the only thing I have decided I need to force myself to do is to keep my cell phone closer (I’d gotten into the habit of leaving it in the car between charges) and keep it charged. With all my other phones being cordless, if I lose power, they won’t work. I found that out a year ago January, or maybe two years ago January, when I lost power for two and a half days. The whole neighborhood and quite a a bit of the city were affected. I ended up going in in person, and found they thought they had restored power to my area, but they had missed some spots, including most of my block. The phone is so old I wouldn’t have been able to charge it either – there’s no car charger made for one of that age. That, of course, wasn’t attack (except from high winds), but if someone decided to attack a dwelling I’d think cutting off power would be quite early in the task list.