Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Otter: Dead! Bluto's right. Psychotic... but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons, but that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part!
Bluto: We're just the guys to do it
Since childhood I have been fascinated by futile gestures, but not ones done in the anarchistic spirit described above, but in the name of personal or public integrity. I speak of situations where someone is faced with a choice of going along with the majority and avoiding personal consequences despite disagreeing with the majority position, or that same person insisting on doing the "right thing" even though he or she knows in advance that it will not alter the situation and it will probably cause damage to the person's career.
This dynamic had been the theme of President Kennedy's 1955 Pulitizer Prize winning book "Profiles in Courage" where JFK, (or Ted Sorenson and staff ghostwriters), examined the cases of six US Senators, all of whom suffered political consequences as product of taking a stand for what they believed was right. An example was Edmond G. Ross, Republican senator from Kansas who was one of just seven Republicans to vote against convicting president Andrew Johnson in his impeachment trial. Ross was defeated for reelection as a consequence.
Ross would probably be utterly lost to history had it not been for the JFK book, and I think it probable that the vast majority of people who made these integrity driven futile gestures, are not remembered.
This thread solicits stories of these sorts of actions and stands that were insuffcient to change the prevailing situation, and were personally costly to those whose conscience could not be corrupted. I also welcome any general discussion of the merits of taking such stands, whether they are admirable examples of personal integrity, or just non pragmatic gestures which accomplish nothing save making the person involved feel good about his or herself.
I came upon one when reading the recent Charles J. Shields biography of Kurt Vonnegut Jr. It concerned a nice guy...Charles McKinley Nice, a relative by marriage to Vonnegut.
After the 1954 US Supreme Court ruling in "Brown v Board of Education" which mandated the desegregation of schools, a number of Southern States attempted to declaw the ruling by passing what were called "Freedom of Choice" bills. These laws said that no child would ever be required to attend a specific school. The idea behind it was a defacto nullification of the court decision. No white child could ever be forced to attend a desegregated school and under the assumption that whites would not send their children to desegregated schools, these places would be left all minority, with the whites enrolling elsewhere.
While this did not defy the court ruling in a technical sense, it certainly stomped on the spirit and purpose, and most importantly in the minds of the Southern legislators, allowed the prevailing segregated situation to stand.
Alabama passed such a law and in the Alabama State House, it won by a 104 to 1 margin. The lone dissenting voice and vote was from Represenative Charles Nice, an attorney who had been elected to the legislature in 1954. The consequence was Nice getting absolutely buried when he attempted to win a second term, this following a year of hate mail and death threats to Nice and his family. This served to help validate Leo Durocher's observation that "Nice guys finish last."
Nice really was a nice guy. In the space of 36 hours in 1955, Vonnegut's brother in law was killed in a train accident and his sister died of cancer, leaving behind four orphaned children. Kurt and his wife, despite already having three children of their own and not much income at the time, took in the four orphaned kids to raise as their own.
Learning of the situation, Nice and his wife volunteered to take and raise one of the orphans themselves, which they did.
I would have never heard of Nice if not for this book, and I cannot find any additional information on him on the net. It stuck me that history must be chockablock with such people, those whose chance to make a name for themselves vanished in idealistic stances.
The one that sprung to my mind first is Jeanette Rankin. Mrs. Rankin was the first woman EVER to be elected to the US Congress and represented the state of Montana, she was a Republican. She holds the distinction as being the only person to ever have two rather Quixotic moments. Mrs. Rankin was a lifelong pacifist and completely dedicated to her belief that war was wrong.
Mrs. Rankin was elected to Congress in 1916 among much great fanfare. Her election came before most women could even vote in the United States. She was held up as a sign of inspiration for the suffrage movement and was a bit of a celebrity. In 1917 when President Wilson asked for a declaration of war against Germany she was one of 56 Congressman and Senators that voted against the declaration. When asked why, she said, "I felt the first time the first woman had a chance to say no to war, she should say it."
Her popularity waned after that and many people felt that she was the poster child for the reason women shouldn't hold elected office, women simply didn't have the stomach for it. She lost a bid to be a Senator from Montana and lost her re-election in 1919. At that point she became a lobbyist for a pacifist movement, The National Council for the Prevention of War. In 1939 her brother encouraged her to once again run for Congress.
In 1940 she was elected on an anti-war platform that advocated addressing issues at home like poverty, hunger, unemployment and disease. She agreed with improving the national defense, but was solidly against any involvement in the war in Europe.
After the attack on Pearl Harbor President Roosevelt asked Congress for a declaration of war. Mrs. Rankin believing that the President had maneuvered the country into war, was the only person in Congress that voted against the war. She defended her choice saying, "As a woman, I can't go to war and I refuse to send anyone else." She fell under immense pressure from her fellow Congressman from Montana and the entire delegation from the Republican party to change her vote, but she stood fast. She was villified in the press and referred to as "Japanette Rankin", crowds booed her wherever she went and she needed a police escort to get to the Capitol to vote.
She realized that she would never win another term in office and decided to retire home to take care of her dieing mother. She remained out of the public spotlight and politics all together until 1968 when she established the Jeanette Rankin Brigade to protest the Vietnam War. At 87 years old she led thousands of women in anti-war marches, women most of whom were 60+ years her junior. Yet, at the end of her life she found her kindred spirits. Not only was she being praised for her pacifism, but the feminist movement meant that those in the younger generation were much more "Rankin" then anyone from her own generation ever was.
She passed away in 1973 at the age of 92. She left her property and meager wealth to a foundation that is dedicated to helping the plight of poor working women in the US. In 2004 a statue of her was placed in the statuary hall at the US Capitol.
****
I would have to say, I doubt Mrs. Rankin and I would see eye-to-eye on many things, but I have to respect her spirit and commitment to doing what she felt was right. Even with the entire nation screaming to unleash a firestorm of vengeance for the blood spilled at Pearl Harbor, she stood her ground and followed her convictions. If only all of our politicians had backbones like hers.
I've been cozened and pressured all my life to 'just go along and say it's okay' in situations where in no way could I win, or I was the lone dissenter. People who have sold their souls, or who go along with a mob, will always hate anyone who holds out--it embarrasses them. Thus, I admire such gestures, especially by those who have far more at stake than me.
I would have to say, I doubt Mrs. Rankin and I would see eye-to-eye on many things, but I have to respect her spirit and commitment to doing what she felt was right. Even with the entire nation screaming to unleash a firestorm of vengeance for the blood spilled at Pearl Harbor, she stood her ground and followed her convictions. If only all of our politicians had backbones like hers.
The degree of respect owed to one who behaves well on behalf of a bad cause, I have never resolved. The Confederates certainly fought with astonishing bravery and skill, but when I see a Confederate flag my first thoughts are always how it championed the idea that some humans were born to be the uncompensated, unfree servants of others, and that they may be identified by their race alone. I can say that I salute their courage and tenacity while condemning their anti progressive, anti human agenda, but in truth my admiration for the former is outweighed by how repulsive I find the latter. I feel the same way when discussing how talented and efficient the German war machine was ...the Nazi doctrines just keep getting in the way.
I terms of the Quixotic gesture, two examples from the Watergate crisis spring to mind, one I admire very much and one I thought the product of romantic immaturity.
The virtuous one was Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus resigning rather than carrying out President Nixon's orders to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. Their refusals of course did not prevent Cox being fired, ambitious Soliciter General Robert Bork was not plagued by the idea of helping Nixon abuse his powers.
And then there was the always weird G. Gordon Liddy who refused to cooperate with the prosecutors in any manner and consequently wound up with the longest jail time of any of the Watergate figures. I saw his sacrifice as being made on behalf of a bad cause, the ongoing ability of a President to elude justice for his crimes, but even worse, it seemed to me that Liddy was this adult caught up in a child's cinematic notion of playing spy. I think that he kept silent on Watergate for exactly the same reasons he went around doing that Lawrence of Arabia stunt where he burns his hand with a match without flinching....punch line..."The secret is not minding." Both actions were in keeping with his romantic self image.
Last edited by Grandstander; 03-01-2012 at 06:16 PM..
Chester Alan Arthur was chosen as James Garfield's running mate in 1880 largely because he was viewed as a Tammany Hall political hack--he could be counted on to do as he was told. Then Garfield was assassinated, dead after only six months in office, and Arthur was President of the United States.
And against every expectation, he championed the Civil Service Act of 1883--consciously dooming any hope of a continued political career.
The degree of respect owed to one who behaves well on behalf of a bad cause, I have never resolved. The Confederates certainly fought with astonishing bravery and skill, but when I see a Confederate flag my first thoughts are always how it championed the idea that some humans were born to be the uncompensated, unfree servants of others, and that they may be identified by their race alone. I can say that I salute their courage and tenacity while condemning their anti progressive, anti human agenda, but in truth my admiration for the former is outweighed by how repulsive I find the latter. I feel the same way when discussing how talented and efficient the German war machine was ...the Nazi doctrines just keep getting in the way.
Good points. I think Mrs. Rankin's case was rather interesting and slightly different as she was standing up for something she believed in that wasn't exactly a negative. I'm not a pacifist, but it's tough to argue that someone who is lacks a certain moral fiber and conviction. Pacifism is a wonderful ideal, but not one that is easily reached. That she was willing to live up to her convictions and ideals even in the face of overwhelming pressure to do the opposite is something, that in her case, I view as rather noble.
. That she was willing to live up to her convictions and ideals even in the face of overwhelming pressure to do the opposite is something, that in her case, I view as rather noble.
I think the cause will remain the major factor for me in terms of viewing someone's stance as noble or ignoble. What else distinguishes "courage of convictions" from "stubbornly clinging to a doctrine which does not have a satisfactory application in the prevailing circumstances?"
In the specific case of pacifism, it is a great doctrine right up until you encounter someone who welcomes your pacifist stance because it makes you that much more easy to exploit or eliminate. If your position is "This no matter what" and the circumstances call for anything but "this"...is that noble or just pig headedness?
I think the cause will remain the major factor for me in terms of viewing someone's stance as noble or ignoble. What else distinguishes "courage of convictions" from "stubbornly clinging to a doctrine which does not have a satisfactory application in the prevailing circumstances?"
In the specific case of pacifism, it is a great doctrine right up until you encounter someone who welcomes your pacifist stance because it makes you that much more easy to exploit or eliminate. If your position is "This no matter what" and the circumstances call for anything but "this"...is that noble or just pig headedness?
Again, excellent points and a lot to think about. I imagine you're right, at some point courage of conviction needs to give way to the prevailing circumstances and one, as a leader or influential person, must ultimately choose to do what's "right" even if it is "wrong" based on your convictions.
One could also look at the case of Mrs. Rankin on further review and see that she had the ability to standby her convictions, because her lone voice ultimately mattered for nothing. Even if she thought war was the correct course of action (she did not, but hypothetically) she was never in a position to have to vote against her beliefs in a decisive manner.
This thread immediately brought to mind Edward R. Murrow, who mortgaged his home to defend entertainer John Henry Faulk against scurrilous charges by a conservative magazine falsely linking Faulk to communist conspiracies.
It was during the madness of McCarthyism and the 1950s black listings. Murrow may not have been entirely selflessly motivated, but he realized that someone had to stand up to the accusers. The cash-strapped Faulk had little money, certainly not enough to hire a top-flight lawyer. However, Murrow's mortgaged home and their good fortune in retaining famed lawyer Louis Nizer for a nominal fee enabled them to take legal action. Nizer easily won a judgment against the magazine. It was a great victory in one of the darker periods of our nation's history.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
