To: Medea Benjamin
Dear Ms. Benjamin,
I watched you on CSPAN today and decided to write an essay about code pink’s tactics. But first, I would like to get your response to a challenging question.
Before I ask my question, some background:
Like you, I’m also 60. My family was on the left, politically. My Aunt was co-founder of the NAACP Bronx Chapter in the 50s, and mentor to me growing.
But even when I was a radical leftist before 1994, I didn’t see the productive purpose in public protests, and certainly not the kind of protests code pink performs.
By that, I mean I was never taught to disrupt other people’s speech. My parents said protest rallies are fine. Especially prior to the internet, when getting your views published and seen by many was costly.
But my parents were old school. And pacifists in their approach regarding tactics. They told me that in a free society, where speech was free and unrestricted, you persuade others by ADDING speech, and not taking away other people’s speech.
In other words, you cannot understand the opposing view by silencing it. And when you hear that view, you can then rebut that view competently and in an informed manner.
A congressional hearing is such a forum. There you have people testify UNDER OATH, and Congressmembers can ask challenging questions. We then obtain the information we need to challenge it, or maybe support it.
But by disrupting a Congressional hearing, you are silencing the speech of others. You are silencing people who are testifying—-and sometimes the panel who are testifying are pro and anti your position. And you are silencing the Congressmembers, representatives of the people, who are seeking information and often challenge the people giving testimony.
I believe that expressing one’s view through public protests is generally a conceit, and a pretentious one at that.
Why? Because during a protest, you are not seeking to persuade by explaining your views through reason and argument. Rather, all you are saying that we have many people willing to get together with other people, and walk down a street together, or in your case, disrupt a forum where others are trying to obtain information about an issue.
In the latter case, which is what you do, it’s involves greater conceit and pretentiousness, because you are not just seeking to draw attention to yourselves, but also to your ability to disrupt lawful and helpful forums of information. That sets a bad precedent for our children, whom we would want to discuss public policy using reason and logic, and not though audacious tactics such as yours.
Public protest is most warranted when your speech is silenced, or you get arrested or beaten for expressing it. Your speech is not greeted that way today. Although as a conservative, in some places my speech happens to be greeted with violence sometimes, but mostly with demagoguery. We are called racists or misogynists or war criminals etc.
You are free to express your views on your website and I can express mine on my website. And many other places. Let the people, through reason and discussion, resolve it peacefully thereafter.
True to my view, I’m now asking you to defend your tactics. Rebut me. Help me understand why I should accept your tactics? Please just discuss and justify your tactics only, because I oppose the Syrian military intervention as do you.