The conservatives continually cry out fro the Occupy Movement to act "responsibly," but without the respect that must go with it, democracy is impossible. The Athenians knew that 2500 years ago, but their Ayn Rands and Koch Brothers, Socrates and Critias, ignored it even then. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

::::::::

Bust of Zeus British Museum London

Responsibility and Respect

By Richard Girard

" Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."

Saul Alinsky (1909--72), U.S. radical activist. Rules for Radicals, "Tactics" (1971).

" Power has only one duty--to secure the social welfare of the People."

Benjamin Disraeli (1804--81), English statesman, author. Sybil, Book 4, Chapter 14 (1845).

Professor Weston in my Constitutional Law class almost thirty years ago stated that one should always look at dissenting opinions to find the Supreme Court's future. His example was Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which stated that truly separate but equal facilities would not long be maintained by the majority for any minority.

Justice Thurgood Marshall's dissent in Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (468 U.S. 288), regarding the First Amendment's provisions for Freedom of Speech and Freedom to Peaceably Assemble for Redress of Grievances, falls into this same category. His dissent, with which Justice William Brennan concurred, started as follows:

"The Court's disposition of this case is marked by two related failings. First, the majority is either unwilling or unable to take seriously the First Amendment claims advanced by respondents. Contrary to the impression given by the majority, respondents are not supplicants seeking to wheedle an undeserved favor from the Government. They are citizens raising issues of profound public importance who have properly turned to the courts for the vindication of their constitutional rights. Second, the majority misapplies the test for ascertaining whether a restraint on speech qualifies as a reasonable time, place, and manner regulation. In determining what constitutes a sustainable regulation, the majority fails to subject the alleged interests of the Government to the degree of scrutiny required to ensure that expressive activity protected by the First Amendment remains free of unnecessary limitations."

The determinant for governments on matters such as freedom of speech, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to demand redress of grievances, has regrettably always come down to a single, simple question: is it convenient for "the people who are in charge?"

The Occupy Movement is extremely inconvenient for the oligarchs of the One Percent, who have deluded themselves into believing that they are running things.

The U.S. Constitution is still in force, which means that "We the People" are still in charge, at least in theory.

We the People are aware of the attempts by the oligarch's lackeys to disenfranchise large portions of the electorate, including the elderly and minorities. This will not stand. We remind ourselves continuously of the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller in Nazi Germany (in paraphrase):

"First they came for the Socialists and Communists, and I did nothing.

Then, they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not protest.

After that, it was the Social Democrats, and I averted my eyes and held my tongue.

Then, they came after the Jews, and I covered my ears so I would not hear their cries.

And then, they took away the intellectuals and the academics, many of them friends, and I did nothing.

Finally, when they came for me, and there was no one left to protest my arrest."

We know from history that the oligarchs will not be happy until they restrict the franchise to such a small portion of the American population, that our elections are meaningless. We know that today's oligarchs are the spiritual descendants of the Council of Four Hundred Tyrants and the Council of Thirty Tyrants that ruled Athens in 411 and 404 B.C.E. respectively. We know that the middle class has always scared the oligarchs to death, because we will not permit them to steal from the U.S. Treasury, or involve us in wars to protect their interests, rather than those of the United States, without spending time in jail when we catch them. We are sometimes slow in recognizing their perfidy, but sooner or later their Vietnams , Watergates , Iran-Contras, Savings and Loan scandal, and Iraq Wars, catch up with them. We the People are at the end of our patience; forgive and forget is a thing of the past.

"Fiat justitia, et ruat caelum! ( Let justice be done, though the heavens may fall!)"--Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesonius, father-in-law of Julius Caesar.

This newest generation of Americans are tired of permitting the pardoning of a Caspar Weinberger, or the commutation of a "Scooter" Libby, without an allocution to the charges, whether they have been convicted or not. Nor should an Oliver North have his charges dropped after his conviction is overturned because it is convenient. This generation recognizes these actions for what they are: obstruction of justice. The rules must change so that the wealthy and influential are no longer given an advantage by their friends and acquaintances in America's courts. They have to change if our Constitution is to survive.

My generation--the Baby Boomers--grew tired; we hit thirty and most of us ran out of energy, or got busy trying to raise a family on a shrinking percentage of the nation's income and wealth. Unlike our parent's generation, mom and dad both had to work to make ends meet: making it to our children's little league baseball and soccer practices and games were pretty much the limit of our energy. (For a more in depth look at this see my November 22, 2011 OpEdNews article "Apology .")

And some of us sold out, became the thing we once said we hated most: exploiters of our fellow human beings.

Thank God for this new generation: they have proven Thomas Jefferson prescient once again:

"[Our] object is to secure self-government by the republicanism of our constitution, as well as by the spirit of the people; I am not among those who fear the people.  They and not the rich are our dependence for continued freedom."--Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. The Complete Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition; volume 15: page 39; 1904.  Emphasis added. 

Justice Marshall continues his dissent:

"In late autumn of 1982, respondents sought permission to conduct a round-the-clock demonstration in Lafayette Park and on the Mall. Part of the demonstration would include homeless persons sleeping outside in tents without any other amenities. Respondents sought to begin their demonstration on a date full of ominous meaning to any homeless person: the first day of winter. Respondents were similarly purposeful in choosing demonstration sites"The primary purpose for making sleep an integral part of the demonstration was 'to reenact the central reality of homelessness"and to impress upon public consciousness, in as dramatic a way as possible, that homelessness is a widespread problem, often ignored, that confronts its victims with life-threatening deprivations"'

In a long line of cases, this Court has afforded First Amendment protection to expressive conduct that qualifies as symbolic speech. See, e.g., Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 "] 393 U.S. 503 (1969) (black armband worn by students in public school as protest against United States policy in Vietnam war); Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 (1966) (sit-in by Negro students in 'whites only' library to protest segregation); Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931) (flying red flag as gesture of support for communism). In light of the surrounding context, respondents' proposed activity meets the qualifications. The Court has previously acknowledged the importance of context in determining whether an act can properly be denominated as 'speech' for First Amendment purposes and has provided guidance concerning the way in which courts should 'read' a context in making this determination. The leading case is 393 U.S. 503 (1969) (black armband worn by students in public school as protest against United States policy in Vietnam war); Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 (1966) (sit-in by Negro students in 'whites only' library to protest segregation); Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931) (flying red flag as gesture of support for communism). In light of the surrounding context, respondents' proposed activity meets the qualifications. The Court has previously acknowledged the importance of context in determining whether an act can properly be denominated as 'speech' for First Amendment purposes and has provided guidance concerning the way in which courts should 'read' a context in making this determination. The leading case is Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405 (1974), where this Court held that displaying a United States flag with a peace symbol attached to it was conduct protected by the First Amendment . The Court looked first to the intent of the speaker -- whether there was an 'intent to convey a particularized message' -- and second to the perception of the audience -- whether 'the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.' Id. at 410-411. Here, respondents clearly intended to protest the reality of homelessness by sleeping outdoors in the winter in the near vicinity of the magisterial residence of the President of the United States. In addition to accentuating the political character of their protest by their choice of location and mode of communication, respondents also intended to underline the meaning of their protest by giving their demonstration satirical names. Respondents planned to name the demonstration on the Mall 'Congressional Village,' and the demonstration in Lafayette Park, ' Reaganville II.' App. 13."

The Occupy Movement's takeover of parks in various American cities and towns, at the very nexus of either political or economic power in those municipalities' jurisdictions, meets Justice Marshall's criteria for expressive conduct that is in fact symbolic speech. If the rest of the court at that time was too frightened or too conservative--which may indeed be redundant--to follow its own precedents, then that is the fault of a weak and vapid court, subservient to the interests of a reactionary segment of society, rather than to the nation as a whole. This was certainly the case in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). It is equally true for the application of Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (468 U.S. 288) today.

The government is never supposed to have an easy time when We the People express ourselves and our rights under the First Amendment. This is especially true when we are using those rights to demand a redress of grievances on the massive scale which the Occupy Movement is doing today.

Ayn Rand's Objectivists and other right-wing extremists--including Presidential candidate Ron Paul--represent w hat Robert Locke quite properly called "The Marxism of the Right" (The American Conservative, March 14, 2005). In my opinion, this group of intellectual children want the blessings of freedom, without the concomitant responsibilities.

Our rights under the Constitution are precious things, which should be worth far more to Americans than mere gold or silver. These rights were sanctified by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence--"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"--and initially--if not exhaustively--enumerated by the Bill of Rights. They are too often used by those who claim that government is the source of all that is wrong in the world: as a license to ignore the needs of their community, as well as their fellow human beings, and as an excuse for refusing even the most basic duties of a citizen to the government.

These "refuseniks" in fact remind me very much of Socrates and his disciples, as I.F. Stone describes them in his book The Trial of Socrates (1988).

There are many important reasons why every American should make at least a cursory study of the history of ancient Greece. But Athens deserves our special attention because that is where the idea of Freedom of Speech in political discourse, as well as the responsibility of all citizens to take an active role in their government, originated. I would strongly recommend reading the late Mr. Stone's book to fulfill the minimum requirement of knowledge of Ancient Greece that all Americans need.

As most of us know, through osmosis of information from our schools and the modern media if nothing else, Socrates was a philosopher in ancient Athens who was "forced" to commit suicide by the authorities after he was convicted of impiety and corrupting the morals of Athenian youth.

This is about as complete a description of what actually happened, as describing the composition of gunpowder as charcoal, sulphur, and potassium nitrate. Without the proper proportions, procedures, and precautions, you are as likely to produce a fizzle or an accidental explosion that kills you, as you are to produce usable black powder.

Socrates and his followers were not men who believed that just any Athenian should have the right to speak before the Assembly on an issue, even though Socrates made it a point to never attend a meeting of the assembly in the Agora. Like their spiritual descendant, Edmund Burke, Socrates and his followers thought that speeches before the Assembly should be limited to those who were experts on the subject, those who were directly effected by the proposed legislation, and the elite who knew what was best for the country.

Plato and Socrates would have agreed with Burke's statement in Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), "The occupation of"hair-dresser, or"tallow-chandler, cannot be a matter of honor for any person"such descriptions of men ought not to suffer oppressions from the state; but the state suffers oppression, if such as they, either individually or collectively, are permitted to rule."

I am going to use a long paraphrase of Mr. Stone's book here:

"But the great lawgiver Solon had given the right to vote in the Assembly to all of the citizens of Athens, after deposing the aristocratic archons. This was done to insure the continued freedom of Athens' citizens, and place a check on her aristocrats. The sophist and teacher Protagoras (in Plato's dialogue of the same name), has Athens' democratic institutions tossed in his face by Socrates, who points out that while questions such as shipbuilding are limited to answers by shipwrights and seamen, questions of a more general political nature are allowed to be stated and answered by any citizen at the assembly, whether they have either training or experience in the matter at hand.

Protagoras answers Socrates by telling a parable of how, after the creation of man, human families lived solitary existences, and were in danger of being exterminated by the wild animals. Men then tried to secure their lives by building cities and towns, but these cities and towns were torn by strife because men had not yet learned to work together for a common goal. (In other words, they were libertarians-R.G.)

Zeus, Lord of Olympus, fearing humanity's destruction, prepared to send Hermes, the messenger of the Gods, down with two gifts for humanity that would permit the art of politics to be practiced, so that man could live and work together in unity and amity within their towns and cities.

The first of these gifts was aidos--a Greek word meaning both responsibility and the shame which accompanies our failure to fulfill our responsibility. This form of responsibility, both implicit and explicit, is one we have to ourselves and others.

The second of these gifts was dike--a Greek word which in this case means respect for the rights of others, including the right to have contrary opinions to your own. This includes listening to those opinions, rather than ignoring them because we believe them to be foolish or uninformed.

Hermes then turns to Zeus and asks, 'Should I deal out these gifts (the political Arts) as I have the rest of the Arts: All to some and none to others?" For when Hermes had given humanity the gifts of medicine, music, and the other Arts, he had given the gifts unequally to men, so that no craftsman was expert in all of the Arts.

Zeus told Hermes, 'No, give them equally to all men.' This is the reason, Protagoras concluded, that while the government of Athens relies on experts for specialized information, for matters of general political discourse, all men have been gifted equally by the gods, and all have an equal right to speak." (The Trial of Socrates, p.p.47-9)

This parable by Protagoras may well be what I.F. Stone called it, "the founding fable" of democracy. It still echoes today, almost twenty-five centuries later in the General Assemblies of the Occupy Movement, and in our right to peaceably assemble for redress of grievances under the protective umbrella of the U.S. Constitution. And it grates upon the sensibilities of the spiritual descendants of Socrates, Plato and Burke, who believe that only an elite can possibly run a country properly.

There were two deities who were sacred to the Athenian democracy: Peitho , persuasion raised to the role of goddess, and Zeus Agoraios , the guardian of the Assembly and its free debates. In the course of his many years as Athens' self-anointed "gadfly," Socrates had disparaged the Assembly and its debates continually, never willingly attending one. It was the insults to these two deities representing Athenian democracy, together with the leadership by his students and friends (Alcibiades in 411 B.C.E., Critias and Charmides in 404 B.C.E.) in the overthrow of Athenian democracy, that led to the charges brought against Socrates in 399 B.C.E..

And that, according to Mr. Stone, is the essence of the charges upon which Socrates was convicted, and for which he chose to drink hemlock. Socrates had become such a danger to Athenian democracy, that he could no longer be permitted to live in Athens. Even with the death sentence, his guards were kept loose: everyone in Athens expected him to flee elsewhere and live out the rest of his days in exile. But Socrates knew he would never be afforded the Freedom of Speech he had under Athens' hated democracy anywhere else. He also knew that the time was coming when his faculties would wane. He wished to be remembered as a martyr against the "democracy" of Athens, not as a demented old man drooling in the corner.

And so Socrates died, giving democracy a bad reputation for far too many centuries.

Justice Marshall completes his dissent with the following paragraph:

The political dynamics likely to lead officials to a disproportionate sensitivity to regulatory, as opposed to First Amendment , interests can be discerned in the background of this case. Although the Park Service appears to have applied the revised regulations consistently, there are facts in the record of this case that raise a substantial possibility that the impetus behind the revision may have derived less from concerns about administrative difficulties and wear and tear on the park facilities than from other, more "political," concerns. The alleged need for more restrictive regulations stemmed from a court decision favoring the same First Amendment claimants that are parties to this case. See n. 1, supra. Moreover, in response both to the Park Service's announcement that it was considering changing its rules and the respondents' expressive activities, at least one powerful group urged the Service to tighten its regulations. The point of these observations is not to impugn the integrity of the National Park Service. Rather, my intention is to illustrate concretely that government agencies, by their very nature, are driven to over-regulate public forums to the detriment of First Amendment rights, that facial viewpoint-neutrality is no shield against unnecessary restrictions on unpopular ideas or modes of expression, and that, in this case in particular, there was evidence readily available that should have impelled the Court to subject the Government's restrictive policy to something more than minimal scrutiny. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.

Justice Marshall had a perspective that his fellow Justices lacked: he had been on the other end of the policeman's baton. He understood the necessity of being able to stand your ground for your beliefs, without having the fire hoses aimed at you, or the police dogs being sicced on your friends. Unlike his fellow Justices, who had always been part of the elite, Thurgood Marshall knew the importance of your rights under the First Amendment if you weren't part of the One Percent, and his dissent reflects that fact perfectly.

The biggest problem with an oligarchy, is that because of their lack of empathy for the lower economic classes, the oligarchs run a nation not in the best interests of all, but in their own best interests. They do not like opposition, especially the very public opposition represented by the Occupy Movement. They want sheep to fleece, not sheep dogs to hound them. Their sense of entitlement, including feeling entitled to rob the Treasury blind, makes it all but impossible for the oligarchs to run a country for long without bankrupting it, unless some strong counterpoise exists.

I have no desire to see the United States bankrupt.

The Occupy Movement has once again invoked the spirits of the Athenian Agora: Responsibility and Respect, the protectors of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly from twenty-five centuries ago. Then as now, there are those who would deny them their right to be heard: Socrates and his disciples then, the oligarchs and their lackeys now. The reactionaries who make up the oligarchy continually harp on the members of the Occupy Movement, demanding they assume responsibility for themselves. Never is any mention made of the oligarchs respecting what the Occupy Movement is saying about what is wrong with our country: the intentional destruction of the middle class over the last thirty years; the lack of support for public education, especially in terms of the cost of going to college; the outsourcing of America's best paying jobs in the name of ever more obscene corporate profits; the increasing lack of opportunity, especially for the poor, working, and middle classes; the fact that the top one percent is paying a lower effective tax rate than they were twenty-five years ago on a larger income. (See my December 29, 2011 OpEdNews article, "Let's Sit This One Out," for more on the last problem.)

Without the twin pillars of Responsibility and Respect, any democratic form of government, from direct to representative democracy, cannot long survive. We must speak out in any and every forum that we may take. We no longer have Peitho and Zeus Agoraios to watch over us; the responsibility for the outcome of this struggle against the oligarchs is ours, and ours alone.

We must not fail.

Authors Bio:

Richard Girard is a polymath and autodidact whose greatest desire in life is to be his generations' Thomas Paine. He is an FDR Democrat, which probably puts him with U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders in the current political spectrum. His answer to all of those who decry Democratic Socialism is that it is a system invented by one of our Founding Fathers--Thomas Paine--and was the inspiration for two of our greatest presidents, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, who the Democrats of today would do well if they would follow in their footsteps. Or to quote Harry Truman, "Out of the great progress of this country, out of our great advances in achieving a better life for all, out of our rise to world leadership, the Republican leaders have learned nothing. Confronted by the great record of this country, and the tremendous promise of its future, all they do is croak, 'socialism.'