The standoff over public access to the Capitol may be over for now, as protesters who had been part of the two-week long "Solidarity Sleepover" agreed to leave en masse Thursday night, and a court-negotiated settlement ordered the building to open to the public as of 8am Monday. Whether Scott Walker's Department of Administration will actually abide by this agreement is anybody's guess.
Now, the debate has shifted to money, with Walker's DOA promoting an outlandish claim that it will cost $7 million to fix unspecified "damage" caused by the protesters. The same DOA also told a Dane County judge that the cost of hiring police to "secure" the building came to more than $2 million. One of those figures is actual taxpayers money, paid out to "protect" the Governor from students, teachers, firefighters and grandmothers, and the other is a completely imaginary number which will never be paid out to anyone. Can you guess which is which?
But before our attention wanders from this remarkable example of nonviolent popular resistance, we should reflect on how a group of protesters inside the Capitol led Scott Walker into a ham-handed decision to ban the people of Wisconsin from their own Capitol, a tactical mistake that may have significantly weakened his position and strengthened ours.
From the outset, the initiative had been on Walker's side, as unions and their supporters reeled at the scope and audacity of his union-busting plan. But the Capitol occupation shifted the initiative to our side - at least this once, Walker was forced to react to our actions. It was Walker who had to struggle with police commanders of doubtful loyalty while also trying to grapple with the "problem" of hundreds of peaceful protesters who stubbornly refused to commit even a single provocative act that could be used to justify a police crackdown.
Faced with this conundrum, Walker chose to break the law. In clear violation of the Wisconsin constitution, he locked the people of Wisconsin out of their Capitol, a move that hasn't happened in decades. And then, once ordered by a judge to reopen the Capitol to the public, Walker chose to defy the court and continue his law-breaking for five more days.
Here, it's important to recognize that the powerful generally prefer to fake an attitude of tolerance towards dissident views. "Well, the great thing about America is that everyone has a right to express their opinion, and, while I recognize these people have their strongly-held views, I respectfully disagree with them." The previous sentence sums up pretty accurately all that George W. Bush ever had to say about the massive antiwar protests that took place during his presidency.
The powerful can usually get away with pretending to be tolerant of dissent because dissent in our country generally takes a form that doesn't seriously inconvenience the powerful or impede their plans. People march, then they go home, and the policy they oppose moves forward, as if the protest never happened.
That's the script as it's played out for decades. So when you see a public figure drop their pose of fake tolerance, it's a genuine sign of progress, because it means dissent has become enough of an impediment (or at least enough of an inconvenience) that the mask of tolerance must be taken off and true contempt for democracy and free expression must be made public.
And if a protest so inconveniences the powerful that they not only have to stop pretending to tolerate us, but then have to go so far as to break the law, then you know you're really on to something. No matter how much contempt for the law a person like Scott Walker may display, it is never the first choice of those in power to break the law. Acting within the law is always the first choice for those who can generally arrange the laws for their convenience. If power means anything, it means being able to pursue your agenda openly and within the law rather than outside it.
Walker's lockout also had the benefit of bringing into stark relief a problem that can, at times, seem abstract and hard to pin down: the fact that, whether the doors of the statehouse are open or not, working people have been locked out of our government for decades, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. In normal times, this virtual lockout is done quietly, through campaign donations, special access for lobbyists, and self-funded millionaire candidates who are increasingly not available for their constituents.
But when he chose to put thousands of Wisconsin citizens literally out in the cold, Scott Walker clarified a systemic problem that goes far beyond the specific issues of Walker's budget, and even beyond Walker himself. I stood with thousands of Wisconsinites on the State Street entrance to the Capitol while Walker gave his budget address to an audience of hand-picked campaign contributors, and I could feel the righteous anger that coursed through the crowd as we shouted, "Let us in!" and "Whose house? OUR house!" A sense of moral clarity is like fuel to a movement, and I can't help but give Scott Walker some credit for fueling our movement that day, and in the days ahead.
And finally, there's the effect that Walker's actions have had on a sometimes shaky Democratic caucus inside the Capitol. The Capitol lockdown and the dozens of petty and arbitrary rules applied during it, enacted in the most blatantly partisan manner possible, helped to solidify the line drawn between the two parties, and will only make it more difficult for the one Democratic Senator Walker needs to cross over to the Republican side. Denying a Democratic legislator permission to meet with his constituents fits in well with a list of petty and vindictive measures taken by Walker and Republican legislative leaders to bring pressure on the 14 absent Democratic Senators. Will the denial of parking privileges and copying privileges for their staffs and $100-a-day fines really break the "Fightin' 14", or will it only strengthen their cohesiveness as a group? Walker and the Fitzgerald brothers seem not to have considered the second possibility.
What's going on in the mind of Scott Walker? He may be a petty tyrant, but Walker's mindset is far from unusual. Walker is simply another member of the Church of Force. Members of this strange church hold a quasi-religious faith in the use of force, believing a sufficient application of force can accomplish anything. And if force doesn't work, that only means you haven't applied enough force.
And the idea that the application of force might actually backfire, that force might actually strengthen the resolve of those you are trying to subjugate? This thought never crosses the minds of true followers of the Church of Force. Comparisons between Madison and Cairo may be overwrought, but Walker and Mubarak have this in common: They only have one tool in their toolbox, that tool is a hammer, and if it doesn't work, they only know how to look for a bigger hammer.
Will Walker continue to commit provocative acts that only serve to undermine his legitimacy as an elected official, to galvanize popular opposition, and strengthen a sense of cohesiveness and solidarity among legislative Democrats? Of course he will; it's simply who he is, and he can do nothing else.
Steve Burns is Program Director of Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment