"Civil Disobedience" Revisited

Thoreau’s “Civil disobedience” was assigned reading back in high school, circa 1966 or 1967. The essay inspired Gandhi and Martin Luther King, among others, to resist injustice. Thoreau preached a duty to resist moral wrong rather than merely vote in disapproval of it.

The most often quoted passage from the essay is “Any man more right than his neighbors is a majority of one, already.” Thoughtfully exercised by individuals like Gandhi and King, it was a powerful tool for good. But, there is a difference between “more right than his neighbors” and any man who thinks he is more right than his neighbors. If you combine that thought with some unchecked executive authority or overwhelming control of both houses of Congress, the results are potentially less positive.

This flawed thinking might embolden a leader to take his country to war or impose wage and price controls. It might also provoke a leader to nationalize banks or to take controlling common stock (voting) positions in large companies. Is it sufficient justification for displacing secured creditors in favor of union members? Would he consider oppressive cap and trade policies, given the differing scientific and economic evidence, if he were not feeling some moral imperative to act decisively? Would the leader’s congressional colleagues call for a vote on a bill, portions of which were yet to be written?

There were two less-remembered passages from “Civil disobedience.” Thoreau noted that progress from absolute to limited monarchy to democracy was progress toward true respect for the individual. “Is democracy such as we know it, the last possible improvement in government? Is it not possible to take a step further?” Yes, it is possible, but the next step can just as easily be a step back. Democracy is not perfect. People mess it up. When we find democracy inadequate, leaders can and do co-opt it for their own, less democratic inclinations.

Republicans should note the second, less-remembered statement: “A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then.” The next time they are called to vote on an 1100-page, $800-billion appropriation bill with less than 70 hours notice, they should decline to vote yea or nay. A bit of civil disobedience (“Sorry, still reading”) could serve to highlight the arrogance.