Read on Twitter
I’ve seen a lot of recent takes about how people should not pull down statues, damage property, or refuse to comply with curfews or police orders to disperse.
I’m incredibly sympathetic to the idea that people should follow the law, but these takes miss something important ...
I’m incredibly sympathetic to the idea that people should follow the law, but these takes miss something important ...
The “follow the law” takes all include the idea that people should use the democratic process to change things that they don’t like—tell the city council to take down the statues, elect a mayor who’ll appoint new police leadership, or just vote for different people & policies
What the “democratic process” argument fails to appreciate is that there are real limits to the democratic process on these issues. “Just vote” won’t fix these problems. And so we shouldn’t pretend that it will.
For example, some states have removed the ability of local officials to remove statues. For example, in NC local officials are only allowed to remove statues when there are safety concerns—ironically, protestors threatening to topple the statues qualifies as such a concern.
Of course, some might say that the answer to these statue problems is to simply elect different state legislators. That’s how VA changed its law.
But then we have to talk about gerrymandering and voter purges, which keep state legislatures from being truly representative.
But then we have to talk about gerrymandering and voter purges, which keep state legislatures from being truly representative.
Police misconduct is another tricky issue when it comes to using democracy to achieve change. Police unions can often insulate officers from leadership. And they also spend a lot of money in local elections, working hard to defeat candidates who might upset the status quo.
Now the “follow the law” folks might insist that these failures in the democratic system don’t excuse lawbreaking. They might think it’s not unreasonable to say you have to not only win more than 50% of votes, but also raise more money and stack the courts to get your policies
But even if that’s right as a normative matter—and I am far from certain that it is—I don’t think that’s like to be a persuasive argument. It’s not likely to convince the average person, let alone the people who have taken to the streets.
And if your real concern here is about having people follow the law, then you should care about whether your argument is persuasive.
More importantly, you should care that a lot of people think our current political and justice systems are illegitimate--because that matters.
More importantly, you should care that a lot of people think our current political and justice systems are illegitimate--because that matters.
People are less likely to follow laws when they think those laws are illegitimate. And so even if you think racial and political gerrymandering is acceptable, it matters that it makes others lose faith in the system.
Even if you think that police officers do not racially profile and use acceptable amounts of force, it matters that a lot of other people don't.
But, at a minimum, please stop saying that people should use the democratic process rather than breaking the law. Or if you are going to say it, you should also acknowledge how much it would require--above and beyond voting--for the democratic process to actually make it work.
