"We the People."
That is one of the most sacred lines in our country's history; the famous three words that begin the preamble to the Constitution.
"We the People, in order to form a more perfect Union ..."
The hope was that the government of the United States would always be subject to the "will" of the people, who ultimately would decide who their leaders would be (as opposed to those leaders coming to power by right of birth, wealth, or military might, the three means which had historically been the basis for leadership throughout much of the world's history).
We were never meant to be a true democracy, for that would be unwieldy. Can you imagine having national referendums on every law suggested, on every bill that was introduced? Plus, a pure democracy opens up the tyranny of the majority; a mere 50 percent plus one could decide to implement a host of laws and rulings that are abusive to the minority of people. Therefore we have representative government, whereby we elect people to represent us in government. However, in theory at least, we still have the ability to recall the people who we feel no longer represent us the way we want to be represented, who enough of us feel may be taking us in a direction we don't like.
But "we the people" is not only an idea in government.
"We the people" also describes the free market, capitalism. While the United States is no longer the shining example of free market economy it once was (the USA ranks 12th in economic freedom, according to the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal), we're still to a large extent a market driven economy.
If people don't like where they live, they move.
If people don't like a product, they don't buy it.
If people don't like what they see, they don't watch.
(Let's be clear - you can't always move from an area you don't like; sometimes you're forced to buy a product you don't like because it's the only one offered or best available; sometimes you watch things you'd rather not watch because the choices are so limited. I get all that, but generally speaking ...)
This weekend, in response to statements made by the current President of the United States, Donald Trump, a majority of NFL players across the league joined what had been a relatively few of their peers and decided to not stand for the National Anthem. One team, the Pittsburgh Steelers, under the direction of their head coach Mike Tomlin, did not go out on the field for the national anthem in direct violation of league rules - although one player, West Point grad and decorated Army veteran Alejandro Villanueva, went out on his own to stand at attention just outside the tunnel leading to and from the field.
I may not like when players, or anyone else, doesn't stand for the National Anthem, but it's their right to do so. Years ago, in a series of rulings in the 1940s-1950s, the Supreme Court ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses did not have to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance in class rooms, since the church felt pledging allegiance to a flag violated Biblical teaching. Since the Supreme Court said one group can't be compelled to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, then why shouldn't another group not be compelled to stand for the national anthem? We say we believe in freedom of expression, the right to protest, and all that. Not standing is a pretty peaceful protest, very much in line with the peaceful approach of a Dr. Martin Luther King as opposed to what we've seen happen in St. Louis recently, for one example.
However, at the same time, if you don't like paying out big bucks to watch a sporting event only to see the people you have paid to watch and cheer for conduct themselves in ways you find offensive, then you - the people - have the right to stop buying tickets, stop watching the games on TV, stop participating in promoting the game - in this case, the NFL.
You've heard the expression, "We get what we deserve?" Maybe it's better to say "We get what we are willing to tolerate."
In this case, the NFL is a business. If the stadiums are empty and no one is watching, the NFL will take notice (just as any business would). Forbes Magazine reported that:
"During the past month the overall stock market is up more than 2% but shares of companies that broadcast NFL games–Comcast,
Walt Disney, Fox, CBS–are all down between 1% to 8%.
The NFL is now a hotbed of protests–a carry over from last year that began when San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick
began protesting during the National Anthem, to protests this year by those who feel Kaepernick, who is without a team, is being
unfairly treated by the league, to a stronger push by some players for an increase in NFL social activism.
Towards the end of last season some felt the NFL’s ratings dip would be temporary and therefore would not ultimately hurt the
networks by forcing them to reimburse advertisers. Instead, the opposite has happened.
Ratings for the NFL have been worse this season and attendance for some games has also been disappointing. The networks will
pay over $5 billion this season to televise the NFL and were already facing unflattering margins on advertising profits. An article
in Variety reckons the drop in NFL ratings could trim the broadcaster’s earnings by $200 million. Disney’s ESPN, meanwhile, also
continues to get hammered ..."
A lot of people booed at stadiums Sunday during the protest. I have read where some people are suggesting the "booing'' was really just fans booing the other team, but I don't think so. I think a lot - if not a majority - of NFL fans did not come to see a political statement, but to see the team they follow and have financially invested in (through buying tickets, programs, merchandise, etc) compete and, hopefully, win.
I'm a fan of the Atlanta Falcons. I plan my Sunday's around watching the Falcons, if at all possible. And like many fans of any sports team, I can be a little hypocritical. I can turn off the Washington Redskins-Oakland Raiders game because I'm bothered by the protest, but I didn't turn off the Falcons' game. I'm a fan. I weigh what bothers me by what entertains me, and only when what bothers me outweighs what entertains me will I be inclined to really follow through.
When that happens - and, as the above article from Forbes points out, it is happening - the NFL will get the message.
Don't get me wrong. I support every person's right to protest. I also believe, however, that you have to be willing to suffer the consequences of your protest. I referenced Dr. King above; he and his movement was a perfect example of people willing to suffer the consequences of their protest and ultimately the public became so horrified at those consequences that the protesters won. That's in direct consequence to today's protestors, who seem to want to be able to protest but be protected from the consequences. Maybe that's why so many people are not moved by those protests. But that's another topic for another blog.
But it goes beyond just the NFL. The same is true of cars, of concerts, of clothes, of anything I spend my money on. I don't buy gas from Citgo because I know Citgo is owned by the government of Venezuela, and I can't support the dictatorship in place in that country. I have a few other companies I have, so far, refused to support - although so many companies are so diverse that I have no way of knowing what all the parent company owns.
The principle also goes into politics. "We the People" determine our leadership. We have the opportunity to get involved in elections and vote. Oh, I hear how "big money" and Russia and fake news and the Koch Brothers or Unions are the real power behind elections, but if you are smart enough to recognize those influences, why do you think other people aren't? (Oh, I know we get fooled, but that, too, is the responsibility of a democracy). One of the ironies of this last presidential election was that we kept hearing Democrats tell us we need to take "big money" out of the process, and yet the Trump campaign won while spending something like a third of what the Clinton campaign spent; we also heard how we wanted an "outsider" in Washington, and we got about as ultimate of an outsider as there could be in a man who had never run for any political office in his life or held any position in government.
So it's pretty simple. If enough of "we the people" get tired of what is going on, "we the people" can still force change. "We" decide what we'll watch, what we'll pay for, who will represent us in government.
Unfortunately, too many of us now feel as though we're powerless.
I think the Founders would be appalled.
No comments:
Post a Comment