Rage

Rage.

Feeling rage after watching the video of George Floyd dying under the knee of a police officer is reasonable.  In fact, anyone who, after watching that video is not filled with rage, has probably lost every shred of their humanity.

But, we can decide how to channel the rage that we feel.  That rage can fuel hate and destruction.  Those who never let a crisis go to waste will use that rage to fuel the flames of revolution.  They will destroy everything in their path, not in memory of George Floyd, not to stop this or similar atrocities from ever happening again, but to further hate and then use it to overthrow everything that is good. 

Rage and destruction are not necessarily equivalent.  One can even understand the emotion behind the rage, find it rational and real, and yet condemn the act of channeling that rage into destruction. 

Everyone should be speaking out about the horrendous acts of four Minneapolis police officers.  Everyone should speak out about any such acts.  Anyone who cannot see injustice when it slaps them in the face is truly blind.  Anyone who tries to justify it is someone whose view and narrative of the world is so closed that they must certainly live in complete fear and hatred every day of their life.  But anyone who thinks that this is an excuse to hate and destroy everyone and everything around them is also filled with a hateful and closed narrative that certainly must make their life a living hell.

Hate.  Fueled by fear.  Creating narratives that hold no hope, no understanding or tolerance, where everyone who is not you is simply out to get you.  This is the world that sadly so many live in today.  People, locked in their narrative, look about them and see everyone and everything around them as an attack on their narrative and ultimately on themselves.  They hate and hate and hate until they explode.  And others will certainly take advantage of that hate, using it for their own political advantage.  People will not stand up to the hate of others if they can use that hate for their own political gain.

Some of you interpret those last two sentences as a slam against the President and his followers, others will see them as a slam against the Democrats and progressive Left.  They are not either and yet perhaps a bit of both.  Seeing them as simply a confirmation of your own political views demonstrates the problem that we have in our society today.

We live in a dystopian world these days.  We are schooled in it from the time we are young.  Compare the original Star Trek series, full of joyfulness and hope for the future, with the most current Trek offering – the Picard series - showing us a dystopian world full of angst and very little hope, and certainly no joy.  We are berated every day with all the problems we might be facing, encouraged to share all the sadnesses and hurts we have suffered, encouraged to see everyone else and even our country as out to get us in one way or another. 

We make sure that children are taught every evil that has or might happen, all the ways that they or their life style or their feelings might be under attack, but we fail to teach them the simple joy of being alive, of having understanding and appreciation for those around us, even those who may seem strange or different.  Actually, that joy is stolen from them as quickly as possible.

Instead of teaching tolerance, we teach hate.  Hate of the other, of the one not like us, of the one with a different value or faith or color or economic status or education.  When that hate becomes real and strong it becomes violent and it engenders fear.  And rage.

I remember the 1967 riots in Detroit.  They were fueled by rage.  A rage similar to that of today’s riots fueled by the death of George Floyd.  After the rage and riots subsided, we could have moved forward seeking understanding.  But instead what we saw was a rise in identity politics and its divisiveness.  Politicians stepped in to turn identity group against identity group as they sought to use a hugely magnified and often manufactured struggle and hatred between groups to further their own power.

Rather than telling inner city people of color that only the powerful politician who needed their vote could help them and then, after getting that vote leaving them with their simmering rage, those politicians and other leaders should have worked to give these people the hope, self-confidence, and skills needed to raise themselves up, not to become a dependent underclass.  Those leaders should have worked for equality and tolerance rather than creating a class of helpless and dependent voters designed to keep their political masters in power.

Identity politics is a political power tool.  It has become more pronounced, more used, and more hateful.  It helps no one but those who use one group or another for their own power.  It dehumanizes and fills people with hate.  And we should then not wonder that life, especially the life of those seen as belonging to a different identity group, becomes meaningless, valueless, and expendable.  We should not be surprised to see hate breed both fear and ultimately rage.

And so, here we are facing that rage for another time in our history.  We can sit back and let the instigators for whom that rage serves a selfish and self-powering purpose prevail.  Or, we can understand the rage but not accept its violence. 

The 1967 Detroit riots are also now referred to as the rebellion.  Some of today’s rioters also hold signs demanding rebellion.  We see others demanding revolution.  And, there are those who march in memory of George Floyd.  We can decide how we wish to channel the rage that our country is experiencing.  We can decide whether we want to turn our rage over to revolutionaries who can use it for their own ends while destroying everything we hold dear, whether we want to revolt against our entire system, or whether we want to demand justice for George Floyd and work toward education that will make similar events less likely in the future.

My rage is great.  I will use it to work for a better understanding and I will direct my intolerance  toward those who seek to use identity of one sort or another to continue to further divide and diminish our humanity.

Why Cautious Reopening is the Right Choice

No one can be certain about anything when it comes to corona virus – the term Novel Virus is certainly appropriate since, the adjective “novel” based on the on Latin novellus refers to something that is not only new, but also original, fresh, and unique.  We are still learning about this virus, probably will be for several more months if not years, and thus, cannot be certain that decisions we make based on what is known at a given moment will, in retrospect when we know more, have been the best actions to take.

Nonetheless, when the virus first arrived on our shores, we saw that it spread easily and quickly, infecting large numbers, and that the consequences of infection could, at least in some people, be highly severe if not deadly.  So, to avoid completely overloading our healthcare facilities we shut down our economy.  People were encouraged if not ordered to stay home and, by shutting down they had no place to go anyway.

It worked.  We flattened the curve.  We did not overload the healthcare system.  The shutdown was never thought of as a means to destroy the virus – it could not do that – but simply a way to make more manageable the care of those infected.  We now can take care of the virus at its current rate of spread.  The reason for the shutdown no longer exists.

That does not mean that we can just run out and completely overnight return to normal.  The opening needs to be cautious.  The shutdown, never intended to completely eliminate the virus, did accomplish its goal of slowing the spread.  And we can continue to keep it from returning to its initial overwhelming spread if we open with precautions.

To be clear, people will continue to get the virus regardless of what we do.  And yes, the more that people are together the more chance of becoming infected.  But we can take reasonable precautions that can minimize the virus’s potential devastation.

We need to open for many reasons.  Small businesses need to restart if they are to avoid facing certain bankruptcy and closing.  People need to get out of often suffocating and sometimes dangerous home situations.  Individuals need to return to work for income as well as for their own self-respect. 

A measured reopening means things like social distancing, limited and slowly increasing occupancies, and masks.  Yes, masks.  These little pieces of cloth seem to have become of mammoth significance in the reopening debate.

As an aside, masks alone will not prevent the virus.  An individual virus can easily penetrate a mask.  But the virus attaches itself to droplets (spread by cough, spit, talking, etc.) which are larger, and the individual virus molecules themselves group together as a larger unit.  A mask won’t stop everything, but it can help and perhaps stop that one that would otherwise get you or that one that you are expelling that would infect someone else.  And, of course, you and others will be in a position to be assaulted by more of those molecules the longer time that you and they spend in the presence of a person or people who are infected and the longer you spend in one place or in a place with inadequate ventilation and air circulation.

Cautious reopening should be a simple and reasonable concept to put into practice.  But, of course, in our currently politically divided nation it cannot.  Instead, the commonsense reopening has become a politically charged weapon, seized upon by both sides of the political aisle.

The Left would keep everything closed indefinitely.  They claim they are advocating this to save lives.  It may do so.  But what it will also do is tank our economy and, since economy is often an issue high on voters’ minds, the Left sees a poor economy as helpful to their political chances in November.  Closure also will require more huge CARES Act type bills that will in many ways further a leftist or socialist agenda in the long term:  make people comfortable with the idea of depending upon government rather than themselves; creating a larger tax burden that then leaves people with less money and therefore more need of government support – the cycle can go on forever; and, providing incentives for unemployment creates an unemployed class dependent upon a government that will continue to provide for them.  Creating underclasses dependent on another's political power is selfish and in the end careless of those others one claims to be helping.

The Right demands immediate and complete reopening with no limitations on the individual’s right to decide for him or herself whether to social distance, whether to wear masks, whether to open their shop for limited or full occupancy.  Conservatism and patriotism never before included the concept of needlessly endangering your neighbor and fellow citizen just to prove a political point that you have individual rights that you believe someone else is threatening.  Yet this has become a rallying cry for the Right, perhaps because they see the Left’s use of this virus as a way to promote a Socialist agenda and therefore the Right chooses to promote the precise opposite position as a defense, allowing that to become more important than any thought of one's neighbor.

There is a middle ground between these two positions, but, like everything else in our charged political environment, it is hard to get people to go there.  It seems easier to simply throw criticism, hatred, and of course more investigations, at the other side.  Yet all that proves is that no one anymore seems to have that basic American value of caring about their neighbor and their country as a whole.

We need to put politics aside.  We need to accept that we do not know everything about this virus and that whatever we do may be proven to have been the wrong thing when we have more knowledge.  In the meantime, we need to do the reasonable and responsible thing.  Slowly move forward in reopening.  Take reasonable precautions – social distancing, limited occupancies, avoiding large gatherings for any sort of extended time, and, yes, mask wearing.  Let’s see how it goes.  As we see that socially conscious Americans can do this, we can move forward – increase occupancies, increase gatherings, and yes, maybe less mask wearing. 

We need to join in support for, and individual participation in, a cautious reopening of our country.  We are one country and one people and, without politics to urge us otherwise, we can do this. 

Think, Listen, Understand

There can be no center if people do not think for themselves.

Recently I was told the story of a middle school student who, interested in politics, commented that “both sides sound just the same.”  While one’s immediate reaction might be to disagree because certainly the details of what each side says are different, when one looks at the bigger picture one realizes that this middle schooler was absolutely correct.

We have a definite political divide in this country, and each side is hateful toward and intolerant of the other.  Each side’s preference seems to be to deny everything held dear by the other side.  Both sides seem to lack any in-depth knowledge of our country’s history, or our constitution along with its history and subsequent interpretations, or our system of government and what is meant by federalism.  Yet both sides will use all those things to support their positions along with their hatred and denial of the other side.

That’s the big picture, and some might say:  well, if we are so much alike, why can’t we just get along.  But, as others might say, the Devil is in the details.  While we could look at the very specific details of today’s or yesterday’s hateful statements or actions, I think the more important details are just a bit broader and are the details of the values and beliefs of each side that underlie and motivate the hate that each displays.

One side seems to have chosen to dislike this country, its history, and all that it stands for.  They point out every imperfection to their new recruits and tend to see nothing but these imperfections, despising the country for them.  It is as if they are looking at a person covered with warts and are unable to see anything but those warts.

This side believes that the problems with the country stem from its very formation and form.  They believe that the way to fix problems, inequities, disappointments is not to work to make what we have better, but to replace the entire system.  Concurrent with this rejection of our democratic republic often comes a rejection of its underlying values which are primarily Judeo-Christian in origin.

The other side often tends to completely ignore the warts.  They believe in this country and all that it stands for, but often go beyond that to argue that it is perfect, has no negative history (or that such history is in the end justifiable) and needs no improvement.  They certainly do not think that the current system of government should be replaced rather than improved.  And, concurrent with this viewpoint often comes a traditional faith and value system grounded in Judeo-Christian principles.

These two positions are polar opposites and cannot co-exist.  Within a country you can have only one form of government.  You must have a generally agreed upon value system that governs the behavior of society within the country and its approach toward the rest of the world.  Each side’s viewpoint is, in its essence, a mortal threat to the other.

We have two sides that every day dig deeper into their positions, unwilling to listen to, let alone tolerate, the differing viewpoints displayed by the other side.  This country has survived, thrived, and grown only with an ability to hear disagreeing voices, understand them, and find some middle ground.  That cannot happen without tolerance for those who hold beliefs and values that differ from one’s own, a tolerance that seems non-existent today.

Where does this intolerance come from?  I think a big part of it comes from a fear of having one’s own views challenged.  And that fear is fueled by the fact that many do not have the understanding of their views that is necessary to deal with a challenge to them.

We live in a world of sound bites and superficial knowledge.  Everyone can do a Google search on anything, read an article or two, and think that they are an expert, whose opinion is as qualified as one who has studied or practiced that subject for years.  No depth of understanding required.

When superficiality rules, there is no need to think deeply about a subject.  When that comes to political positions or core values it is easy to simply accept the narrative that sounds good without further thought about it or about its consequences.  People find it easier to simply accept the position of another rather than to think for themselves.  And, because the position really belongs to someone else, because it is not one’s own  in the sense that one has not thought about it and does not own it, then the one who has simply adopted it is unable to defend it when challenged. 

This means that, when that position is challenged, rather than carry on a thoughtful discussion about the position, rather than reexamine one’s own beliefs while trying to explain them to another as well as understand differing opinions and what they might have in common with one’s own, the person challenged simply rejects the challenger, refusing to even hear their alternate viewpoint.  They cannot tolerate the alternate viewpoint because it is a threat which they cannot defend against since they do not have the understanding of their own beliefs necessary to do so.  And, this “attack” leads not only to fear, but also to hatred against the attacker because of their threat.

If we were all thinking for ourselves, we would not have these two distinct, irreconcilable, and hateful groups.  Instead we would have a wealth of individuals representing their own person along a broad and diverse spectrum.  But we cannot have that without people using their seemingly long forgotten ability to think for themselves.

With thinking about something comes not only a better understanding of that thing, but also a better understanding of differing views about that thing.  Thinking and understanding deeply allows one to understand the why of their own viewpoints and with that why they can have the courage to have those viewpoints challenged and the courage to tolerate those who hold different views.

This country, our form of government, allows us to hold that individuality even while some would have us give that up.  This country allows us, indeed encourages us, to have not only extreme opposing positions but to listen and learn and come together in some middle ground.  But to have that middle requires that we listen and learn and understand.   And we cannot do that if each opposing side simply dismisses and hates the other.

It is education and thought that give one the courage to lose the fear and its companion intolerance that plague us today.  Without them we will never bridge the gap that grows ever wider and more hateful between opposing political sides; sides that are made up in large part by people who are simply accepting one view and rejecting another without any thought or examination.

This country is not perfect.  It has warts.  But it is not only warts.  It has a beauty and goodness that has always shined through despite those warts and that has led us to ever become better members of the human race.  We cannot let this superficial time in which we live blind us to that. 

The middle school student is on the right track and we must encourage her and her peers to rise up and think, to become the individuals that they are meant to be with views that are their own in depth and understanding, and not simply superficial creations and mimics of others.  They can lead this country back to the centered, tolerant, and diverse society that stands together both despite and because of its individuals and their differences. 

It is that ability to think for oneself with understanding that is at the very core of our society.  Indeed, it is a requirement to have the rights and privileges and freedoms that this democratic republic provides.  Thinking, listening, understanding:  these are our civic duties.  We owe it to that middle schooler to exercise them.

Let’s Be Clear About the Constitution

There is a lot of uncertainty about the coronavirus, and the everchanging statistics and projections that it produces.   Because there is no definitive “right answer” about what we should do, everyone has their own opinion about what we should or should not do. No one can really know what is correct.   That is fine.  What is not fine is that many people seem to have decided that, because there is uncertainty and no definitive answer,  they can simply create their own rules for themselves, disregarding their governors’ restrictions when they do not agree with those restrictions.  (Regarding the rule of law, see my previous post HERE).  

For some reason many seem to think that the Constitution provides them the right to make their own decisions to override legitimately imposed restrictions.  A common assertion at protests against pandemic orders is that the primary reason the Constitution was written was to restrain the government and that to constrain in any way the ability of the citizenry to individually choose how to interact in society is an unconstitutional attack on their “freedom.”  Similarly, there is the assertion that to impose limitations on behavior is some tyrannical form of unconstitutional oppression of individual rights and freedoms.

Nothing could be farther from the truth; such assertions reveal a complete misunderstanding the Constitution, the nature of the governors’ rights and obligations, and what is meant by freedom within our democratic republic. 

I am increasingly troubled by this widespread misunderstanding of our Constitution and our rights that has come to the surface during this pandemic.  Thus, I proceed here to provide a general overview to refresh our memories or to provide an introduction to further study.

First, the preamble to the constitution does not assert or imply that its purpose is to protect you from the government, or that you have the right to ignore laws you do not like, or do whatever you want.  Rather, it states, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Thus, the purposes, as stated within the document itself are:

               To form a more perfect Union;

               To establish Justice;

               To insure domestic Tranquility;

               To provide for the common defense;

               To promote the general Welfare;

               To secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

To let each of us do whatever we want without restraint is not included.

Now, looking at the document itself, it serves three main functions.  First, it creates a national government consisting of three branches (legislative, executive, judicial) and provides a system of checks and balances between the three.  Second, it divides power between the federal government and the states.  Third, it protects certain individual liberties of American citizens.

Elaborating slightly on these three functions, I would first note that the three branches of government are:  the executive power which is invested in the President; the legislative power which is given to Congress (House and Senate); and the judicial power which is vested in the Supreme Court and other federal courts created by Congress.  The system of checks and balances between these three branches avoids tyranny of any one branch.

Federalism addresses the second function of dividing power between the federal and state governments.  Powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.  Those enumerated powers have been interpreted broadly, and, under the supremacy clause of the Constitution federal law is supreme over state law.   The Constitution also limits the powers of the states in relation to one another, such as limiting via the commerce clause the ability to regulate or tax commerce between states and prohibiting states via the privileges and immunities clause from discriminating against citizens of other states. 

The third function, protection of personal liberty of citizens, comes in part from the main body of the Constitution but more familiarly from the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights. These amendments were adopted shortly after the adoption of the Constitution itself, in response to states’ concerns about the Constitution’s lack of protections for individual rights.  The protections of these amendments were originally interpreted to apply only against the federal government, but the Supreme Court has since ruled that most of them were made applicable to the states by passage of the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.  That Amendment also contains the equal protection clause, which protects citizens from discrimination by the states.

The Bill of Rights sets forth specific prohibitions on government power.  They are not a blanket grant to citizens to do what they please.  The bill of rights guarantees certain specific rights to the individual and the ninth amendment specifies that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  While the government may not generally infringe on these rights, they are not absolutely protected from all restriction. 

A law allegedly infringing on specific individual rights may be allowed if, after strict scrutiny, it is determined that the law or regulation is necessary to a compelling governmental interest, is narrowly tailored to achieve that compelling purpose, and is the least restrictive means to achieve the purpose.  Essentially, using this test, a constitutional right may be balanced against the government's interest against observance of that right. When such a regulation or its enforcement is challenged we see the operation of the three branches of government and their checks and balances come into play.

So, when a governor of a state enacts a rule which someone believes is unconstitutional, that regulation can be challenged and, using the above criteria may or may not be upheld.  There is nothing in the Constitution or elsewhere that says it is appropriate for an individual who disagrees with a regulation to simply disobey the rule.  That is nothing more than an act of anarchy.  And to assert that the Constitution gives one a right to be an anarchist is ridiculous, just as it is ridiculous for people to proclaim that it is their choice whether to go out or not rather than follow a governor’s stay at home or back to work orders. 

People who disagree with a governor’s orders or who agree with a violator of those orders are not “patriots” when they laud the violator.  These are often the same people who demand that sanctuary cities be penalized for not following the law or that or that sheriffs who do not enforce gun regulations be disciplined.  Yet here they are supporting disregard for or themselves disregarding legitimate pandemic orders.   True patriots would understand that you don’t just enforce laws with which you agree.  They would understand that the freedom we hold so dear in this country is not a freedom to do what ever one wants regardless of what the law requires.

These pandemic restrictions are not tyranny.  They are not destroying the Constitution.  They are simply controversial.  That controversy stems in part because there is so much uncertainty surrounding coronavirus and the many statistics and projections that it produces.  People are afraid of the unknown, so much uncertainty.  The fears are molded by such things as political positions, personal values, news sources and information about the virus and the economy, personal health and economic status, etc. 

With fear comes anger. With anger comes the desire to blame someone, because once you can blame someone for a problem then the problem is no longer really uncertain – it is under someone’s control.  Essentially, if we name the fear, we make it concrete and blamable.  Thus, perhaps, while the uncertainty of the virus itself cannot be removed, governors can be blamed for violating constitutional rights, thus creating a certainty that can be fixed. 

But such blame is false and cannot reverse the uncertainty of how to deal with a pandemic.  It cannot assuage fear.  It cannot provide a definitive answer to what is an uncertain future. It is based upon incomplete reading and faulty understanding of our Constitution and as such does not justify the behavior that it is being used to defend.

It’s fine to have an opinion about what one thinks is the best way to proceed in light of what we do and do not know about coronavirus.  We are going to disagree about that; that is perhaps the one certainty. But we cannot begin acting as if our individual opinions replace our rules of law, providing each of us with our own conflicting governing structures.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter whether we agree or disagree about what are the appropriate restrictions and back to work timelines in response to CoVid-19.  What matters is that the disagreement is shining a light on a far more serious disease that seems to be eroding the very core of our country: a serious lack of understanding of our Constitution and the governing principles that make our country the successful democracy that it is.  When we lose our understanding and respect for this core, we indeed lose our country.

  

Rules, Choices, Consequences - updated

We live in a country governed by the rule of law.  That law comes from many sources – the Federal Constitution, state constitutions, legislatures, regulations, city ordinances, executive orders, etc., and even restrictions imposed by state governors during a health pandemic emergency.  These are the rules that govern our behavior in our society. 

Basically, the rule of law provides that a society and the individuals within that society will be consistently governed by a set of legal codes and processes.  Our “rule of law” is based in our Constitutional form of government.  Countries not governed by a rule of law include a variety of authoritarian regimes as well as those devolved into anarchy.  Aristotle proclaimed, "It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens."

When someone does not like or does not wish to obey a particular rule they are faced with choices, three of which immediately come to mind:  obey, challenge, disobey.  Each of these choices comes with consequences attached; those consequences should be part of one’s consideration in making the choice.

If one chooses to obey a rule they do not agree with, the consequences are twofold.  First, they will not be penalized for failure to obey the rule and secondly, they will likely have to change their behavior or desired behavior in some way to do or not do something they had wanted to and otherwise would or would not have done. 

The second possible choice is to challenge the rule using our judicial system.  That challenge might be based on such things as whether or not it is constitutional or an abuse of discretion or power, whether it is duplicative or ambiguous or unfair in its application, etc.  One might also ask for an exemption to a particular rule based on their own personal circumstances.  Such challenges of course take time; one will not get immediate gratification, but must instead wait for a ruling and perhaps a challenge to that ruling and also must understand that in the end the ruling may not be the one they hoped for.  But that is how a country governed by the rule of law (rather than personal or mob demand) operates.

The third choice that one can make when faced with a law they do not like is to disobey that law and simply do what they want.  Murderers do this.  Illegal border crossers do this.  Jay walkers do this.  Anyone who makes this choice on any level should also be prepared to face the consequences which may include criminal penalties including fines, jail or, in some cases death.  Sometimes people making this choice will determine that it is necessary to disobey and take the consequences in order to make a broader social justice point – for example participants in lunch counter sit ins during the civil rights movement.

In our current pandemic times we have many examples of people choosing to disobey their governor’s restrictions.  They often claim they are justified in doing so, asserting that any restrictions on their “rights” are unconstitutional.  First, that shows an appalling lack of understanding of our Constitution.  But, even if that were a reasonable argument, the thing to do is to challenge those restrictions that they argue to be illegal in a court of law.  Some individuals in some states have done so (for example churches seeking permission for drive-in services) and have either obtained exemptions or seen modifications to the rules.  Others have not won their arguments against the rules.

As an aside here, I will note that the governors do indeed have the authority to impose reasonable restrictions during a time of health emergency.  One has the right to challenge the reasonableness of a particular restriction.  If one does so, one must be willing to accept the decision of the court or courts to which they bring their appeal.  That is how the rule of law works.

What we see, however, is an alarming refusal to follow the rule of law when it comes to such health emergency restrictions.  I happen to believe that governors are doing the best they can with data that changes daily and with concern for both their state’s people and its economy.  People who think they know better than their governor probably do not; at a minimum they do not have access to all of the daily information that governors receive.  I suspect they have not taken the time to understand the purpose behind those restrictions which they do not like.  And yes, some governors are probably getting some things wrong, but blanket refusal to acknowledge their very power to issue restrictions, along with blanket disobedience of those restrictions is a frightening disavowal of our very system of government.

In the end, what I see is too many people who, like young not yet socialized children, refuse to not only follow reasonable rules but also refuse to take personal responsibility for their disobedience.  Let’s take for example the Texas salon owner who was sentenced to a week in jail for failure to follow her governor’s restrictions.  Here was a woman who made a choice and should have been willing to accept the consequences of her choice which included criminal penalty including jail.  She was happy to choose to disobey, but seemingly unwilling to accept the consequences of that choice, believing that her personal reasons were enough to allow her to break the rule and open her salon.

Rather than make her choice and accept the consequences, the woman, like a small child, did what she wanted.  Before being jailed or even arrested, she was given a cease and desist order – which she tore up.  This is the point at which she might have instead requested an exception based on her personal circumstances if she really believed those circumstances warranted the rule not being applied to her.

Once charged for opening, in court she was given the option of taking “this opportunity to acknowledge that your own actions were selfish, putting your own interest ahead of those in the community in which you live” and then being given a fine only.  She refused and instead made excuses:  she wasn’t selfish but needed the money, ostensibly to feed her family (essentially asserting that herself was more important than society and the public good).  She refused to close her salon and told the judge to go ahead and send her to jail.

Her behavior is not unlike a small child who defiantly refuses to follow rules.  But what may be worse are the other adults in her community and beyond who are acting like parents who excuse their children’s bad behavior.  Rather than perhaps helping her with her personal circumstances, they are making the excuses of why she “needed” to disobey the rule.  Some are even offering to take the blame or even the punishment for her.  They have raised several hundred thousand dollars for her because of her failure to comply.   In essence they are justifying her illegal behavior.  

This really is simply another example of avoiding personal responsibility and of others excusing that avoidance.  When we can do whatever we want, obey only those rules that we choose to or which are agreeable to us, when rather than accept personal responsibility for what we do we instead make emotional excuses that are accepted by others who then excuse us, when this becomes the norm then we no longer have a nation governed by the rule of law. 

ADDED NOTE:  Once the rule of law was followed, the Texas Supreme Court just now ordered the woman freed and the governor banned jail as penalty for failure to comply with this rule.  Following the rule of law indeed provided a remedy for this woman.  

This disobedience and excuse is not new with the current pandemic; rather, the fact that people are having their lives and routines disrupted for the public good has revealed the extent of the self-centeredness that exists in this country.  That self-interest abundantly extends to a belief that one only need follow those rules which they choose.  With this absorbing self-interest comes a lack of patience and hence too many believe there is no need to question via our judicial system – just disobey and get whatever immediate gratification is sought. 

Sure, we see the daily stories of those who act selflessly to serve others during this pandemic.  But that goodness seems to be outnumbered and overwhelmed by those who cannot think beyond themselves and their immediate desires.  This has been a part of our society for some time; it is just more visible now.  And it should give us all pause as we consider what happens if we allow ourselves to become a nation where personal responsibility is excused by self-interested narrative, allowing individual citizens to make their own rules so that the rule of law is no longer the governing principle in our society.