Our House: In the Middle of Our Street

If you are lucky enough, gentle reader, not to have one of the “Occupy” or similar movements sullying your public places, consider yourself very fortunate, indeed.Having had the misfortune to pass by McPherson Square yesterday afternoon and see (and smell), for the first time in person, where America’s anarchist-movement-du-jour is camped out beneath the incredulous gaze of Civil War hero Maj. General James McPherson, I was struck by the awful condition of the public space.   If we do not permit public protests of course, we are not truly a democracy, even when we disagree with the points of view of the protesters.  However, if those same protesters do not respect public property, then one really does have to question the fundamental underpinnings of their protest.

We are fortunate that at some point, someone saw sense and put a wrought-iron fence around the White House about a block or two away, to keep this kind of nonsense off of America’s front lawn.  The White House has been the official residence of the American head of state for centuries, and the symbolism of having an official residence for the elected leader of a country is of great  importance to any democracy. Imagine if the next President of the United States – may he please be elected in 2012 – arrived in Washington and, instead of living at The White House, chose to rent an apartment on Connecticut Avenue. Would he be more or less likely to reflect on the great weight of history on his shoulders, if he was not surrounded by the walls, furniture, paintings, and so on that represent the life and work of the men who have held his office before him?

Whatever the identity of the individual head of state living in the White House at any given time, in a democracy such as ours he is but the sitting tenant of a property we all hold in common. Given the security concerns, no one was going to issue a permit for protesters to gather on the front lawn of the White House, and so their caravan has moved onto other public space nearby.  And here, we are all getting a sense of how these persons, who decry (in some cases with very good reason) selfishness in others, are now exhibiting an incredible amount of selfishness themselves.

Of course, McPherson Square is not The White House, but like the White House it is still a public place that the people of the United States own in common, and one which at the present time the people cannot safely use.  The encamped protesters do not understand that while public spaces and buildings belong to everyone, including them, they do not belong to them or to anyone exclusively.  Indeed, the present situation reminds me of something my faculty advisor in law school used to say: your right to shake your fist in my face stops at the tip of my nose.

Under long-held theories of property law, of course, such as in the classic common law situation of a tenancy in common, if you ruin a piece of land that we jointly own, I can in theory sue both for damages and to have your ownership of that property terminated.  Naturally we have no such recourse with respect to the public parks of our major cities, and the analogy does not directly apply to what is going on in our parks and squares.  Yet clearly the abuse of this country’s long acceptance of and tolerance for the public airing of differing points of view must be tempered by a realization that protest which destroys publicly-owned property with impunity is not really a free exercise in democracy or in joint-ownership of the public spaces of our country.

From time to time a promotional ad runs on PBS entitled “This Belongs to You”. The montage of images over solemn, but inspiring music, flashes beautifully photographed scenes of, among other things, various American monuments and memorials, our natural wonders such as the Grand Canyon, and so on. It has always annoyed me no end, for it overlooks one very important fact: it assumes that everyone will voluntarily try their best to take care of things that belong to them, when this is patently not the case.

There will always be people who take advantage of protests such as the present “Occupy” groups to wreck both public and private property.  The distinction between protester and vandal, however, needs to be made, and penalties enforced, by our elected and appointed authorities.  These protesters have the right to their opinion, and we must defend their right to express said opinion, even if we find it unsavory.  We must not and cannot defend, however, the notion that their right to protest supplants the general public’s right to enjoy, free of damage, danger, and destruction, the property which they must share with their fellow citizens.


“White House South Front Elevation” rendering by architect James Hoban (1793)
White House Historical Association

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Our House: In the Middle of Our Street

  1. I don’t have a problem with protest, but when the protest goes too far and destroys property, I get a little ticked like you. If someone is going to take direct action in the form of a protest, they must do it responsibly. I wrote about the responsibilities of protest, among other things, on my blog’s most recent article. You should check it out, I would love to hear what you think! Here’s the link: http://thewritofcotton.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/the-thinkers-anthem/

    Like

  2. William – I am continually disappointed in you, as a fellow Christian, over your continued sneering attitude toward the OWS movement; a particularly Christian moment in our American history. For instance, Bishop Gene Robinson, ninth bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire, had this to say about OWS:

    “One-sixth of all the words Jesus spoke, and one-third of all the parables, are about the dangers of wealth and possessions. It is something that we hear from the prophets — particularly of the Old Testament, and of course that’s what Jesus was steeped in, those were his scriptures — that any culture, but certainly one that claims to be Godly, is to be judged on how well the most vulnerable are treated.

    “It’s more than about numbers, and it’s more than about disparity of income. It’s really about our sense of community. And indeed, do the wealthy have a responsibility to the larger community? Are we really going to live in an “every man, woman and child for themselves” world, or are we going to be a community in which the greater good, the common good, is also a value that we hold?”

    So I guess my question is – how do you reconcile you Catholic faith with your continued attacks on the poor and those who are trying to help them? This is not an attack – I’m a great fan of your blog – I’m simply trying to understand how you can sneer at OWS in light of the teachings of Jesus.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s