RUTHFULLY YOURS

And what if you don’t like the law or reject its fairness? Under the rule of law the answer is simple: work through the system to change it. So, for example, when many Americans recently rejected Obamacare they sought relief via the courts and fielding their own candidates for office, i.e., they played by the rules.

The rule of law especially benefits the weak and the outnumbered. Absent this protection, politics just degenerates into force versus force, and the weak are doomed. This is the mob rule the Founding Fathers feared and the historical record is clear, rule of law has been a blessing for those who would be out-gunned in a show of force. The black civil rights movement, among many other campaigns launched by minorities, wisely relied on the courts and politics, not armed resistance.

The rule of law is hardly the default human option. Judged by what occurs world-wide, it is rare and readily abandoned when the aggrieved choose make-it-up-as-you-go-along force. Think sectarian violence in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, among many other places. In the United States it would be as if today’s Tea Partiers regressed to the Tea Partiers of old—vandalize ships, tar and feather tax collectors, trash government offices and otherwise contravene the legal process. To be sure, those tactics did momentarily succeed back then, but it is inconceivable that America could have outlasted its revolution if the mayhem persisted. Recall that the Constitution itself resulted from Shays’ Rebellion (1786-7) in which financially over-extended farmers marched on a local court house to destroy documents and thereby personally eliminate their mortgage debt.

At some point those who cherish civil society must accept that while they may dislike a law or are displeased with a court verdict, enduring self-interest counsels working within the system since recourse to violence means surrendering the rule of law. That price is almost never worth paying, especially for weak minorities.

All of this is but a long prologue to highlight a notable breakdown in the rule of law, a situation that occurred in Oakland, CA on November 5^th, 2010 (see here). Events began when a California court sentenced former transit police officer Johannes Mehserle to two years in state prison for the involuntary manslaughter of Oscar Grant III. Grant, was an unarmed black who had been forcibly removed from a Bay Area Rapid Transit train. During a fight with Mehserle, who is white, Mehserle shot and killed him with his gun that he had mistakenly believed to be his non-lethal Taser. The jury had considered the charge of second degree murder but rejected it. The judge also rejected a longer sentence. There are no accusations of racial bias in jury selection or the judge’s behavior. In other words, a trial occurred as per the rule of law.

Nevertheless, many Oakland residents took umbrage at this outcome. Though the outrage began as a peaceful rally, several hundred protestors, many dressed in masks, soon roamed downtown Oakland vandalizing cars, smashing business windows, setting dumpsters on fire and looting footwear and jewelry stores. One policeman had his gun stolen and turned on him and 100 protestors were arrested. Even journalists were attacked. The state governor, the black Mayor and the black police chief both pleaded for calm but the seriousness of the situation was reflected in the cancellation of all police leave and calling in a police helicopter.

To be sure, in the grand scheme of things this Oakland riot is relatively minor but it sadly illustrates how what is so important is so easily neglected. A teachable moment has been missed in favor of inflammatory rhetoric. The “respectable” consensus seems to be that the riot was unfortunate but somehow acceptable given circumstances. Benjamin Jealous, President of the NAACP said, “We are outraged that the jury did not find guilty of murder in a case that was so egregiously excessive and mishandled.” There are calls for an investigation by Civil Right Division of the Department of Justice. That is, court proceeding aside, Johannes Mehserle was a murderer, not a police officer guilty of an honest but deadly mistake, and should be treated as a cold-blooded killer. Or at least some jewelry stories should be looted to make amends. Simply put, the views of Oakland protestors regarding justice should trump decisions of the judge and jury.

Now, consider what life in the US would be like if this disdain for the rule of law, like a virus, spread beyond these agitated Oakland residents. Ordinary citizens now decided innocence and guilt, even the law itself. Keeping in mind that African Americans are a minority, perhaps thousands of armed white masked off-duty police officers might descend on Oakland to avenge the honor of their unfairly treated colleague. Maybe whites via majority vote will decide that blacks as “so violent” that they should be denied basic civil liberties and occasionally be arrested just for “being black.” Yes, it would be “justice,” but justice according to those who had the most muscle and were willing to use it.

Still not convinced? Visit Mexico and witness “justice” when government cannot impose the law or take a trip to Zimbabwe to see what occurs when private property is protected not by statute but the leader’s whim. Yes, in both instances rules exist but it is the rule of those possessing the most guns, at least at that moment and that could change tomorrow. And if you think that today’s Oakland is economically troubled, just wait until judges and juries are replaced by rival gangs, all brutally defending their turfs and collecting “fees” for providing “police protection.” This would be instant economic catastrophe.

NAACP president Raymond Jealous should have given the following speech. To my fellow African Americans in Oakland upset about Johannes Mehserle’s short sentence. We are unhappy with the judicial outcome, but it was arrived at fair and square, and to attempt at reversing this outcome with looting subverts the rule of law. Never forget, it is the rule of law that makes America peaceful and prosperous, and that’s why millions want to settle here. Perhaps most of all, without law, unpopular minorities—and that is often us–have no chance against stronger, better armed majorities. Yes, it is not always easy to swallow an unpleasant legal outcome, but there is recourse. That’s what politics is all about but you must play by the rules. Still, if you feel that your own personal vision of justice is paramount, the world is filled with accommodating venues. Yes, you will probably be destitute, constantly fear for your life, and if you get rich, you may have to hire a private army but you can be your own King. Those who want to leave the United States and survive without the rule of law, please raise your hands and I’ll be happy to hand out one-way airplane tickets. If not, stop rioting.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Robert Weissberg is emeritus professor of political science, University of Illinois-Urbana and currently an adjunct instructor at New York University Department of Politics (graduate). He has written many books, the most recent being: The Limits of Civic Activism, Pernicious Tolerance: How teaching to “accept differences” undermines civil society and Bad Students, Not Bad Schools. Besides writing for professional journals, he has also written for magazines like the Weekly Standard and currently contributes to various blogs.