Skip to comments.CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY: THE USE OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE BY OPERATION RESCUE
Posted on 02/17/2013 12:33:26 PM PST by PeterPrinciple
THE RESEARCH PROBLEM Ours is a society increasingly characterized by the use of extra-institutional means of waging and resolving conflicts. As the state becomes increasingly unable or unwilling to intervene in public conflicts, more and more individuals join social movements as a means to protect and expand their rights and interests. As a consequence, the use of civil disobedience, one method of nonviolent action, has become more common.
Civil disobedience refers to "the deliberate and peaceful violation of particular laws, decrees, regulations, ordinances, military or police orders, and the like," either because such laws, etc. are considered unjust or because breaking them is a means of opposition to some wider government policy.1 While civil disobedience has been utilized extensively in more liberal and radical social movements (those seeking to promote social change, such as the Indian campaign for independence from Britain, the civil Rights movement in the United States, and the various antiwar movements of the twentieth century), it has rarely been used by conservative social movements (those seeking to prevent social change). An anomaly is Operation Rescue.2 In 1988, anti-abortion activists in the United States formed the organization Operation Rescue, which began a campaign in which protesters blocked the entrances to abortion clinics in an attempt to prevent abortions from being performed. In Atlanta, over the course of several days 1,664 anti-abortion protesters were arrested for blocking the entrances to abortion clinics in that city.3 In subsequent months, similar actions were held and arrests made in Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Florida. Operation Rescue has held national training conferences and has a national office which aids local groups in staging civil disobedience actions.4
Some theorists of nonviolence, notably Gene Sharp, claim that nonviolent action is not the exclusive property of the Left, that it is a politically neutral tactic which can be used by individuals of any political persuasion.5 Yet typically, it has not been. This is likely due to the fact that the use of civil disobedience depends on a willingness to challenge the authority of the state. Conservative ideology is identified by support for the status quo and, since the state upholds the status quo, respect for the laws of the state. In contrast, for more radical groups the use of civil disobedience is a logical extension of the belief that since social change is desirable, and since the state functions to uphold the status quo, then disobeying the laws of the state is an appropriate tactic for promoting social change.
Given its conservative bent, Operation Rescue's use of civil disobedience raises some questions:
--Since the use of civil disobedience does not appear to fit neatly into conservative ideology, how do Operation Rescue participants explain their use of this tactic?
--How do participants' views of civil disobedience relate to their beliefs about conflict and conflict resolution, and more generally, social order and social change?
--How are participants' beliefs about conflict and conflict resolution, and social order and social change, affected by participation in Operation Rescue?
just an excerpt, not the whole article
When I think of civil disobencvience I think of left and am not insprired. But there is a different flavor when conservatives do it.
Doing a little research from another post http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2989384/posts?page=96 let me to this article and I think it deserves its own thread.
Liberals believe only they are allowed to “disobey civilly”. They would be appalled if conservatives tried what they do and wonder “what this world is coming to”, not to mention how horrified the “media” would be at the “loss” of civil discourse!!
Too much civil disobedience could lead to anarchy. The Founding Fathers were trying to find the golden mean on the continuum between anarchy and tyranny.
How does it fit into conservative theology?
It’s called we don’t play by double standards. It’s called giving the other guy a tasted of his own medicine. THAT fits into conservative theology because it’s a direct application of THE GOLDEN RULE. You don’t like other people doing to you what you do to them, then don’t first do it yourself.
“The Founding Fathers were trying to find the golden mean on the continuum between anarchy and tyranny. “
But they were willing to take anarchy over tyranny.
The Civil Rights movement used civil disobedience . And there was a lot more actually violence than we heard about, once the press got behind them. Many policemen went injured, even those who were doing no more than trying to defend themselves and to prevent rioting.
The Founding Father were very much men of the elite, who wanted to protect their property. None the less, they themselves were revolutionaries, and they could only push people so far. You have heard of Shays Rebellion. We,, they didn’t win on the ground, but they managed to throw out of office all those official who set the dogs on them. Early day Tea Party.
The author’s of this study, don’t understand modern politics.
We conservatives are not interested in supporting what is now considered the “status-quo”. The liberal jerks from the 60s used civil disobedience and protest to advance their agenda. They were so successful at it that they are now in charge. They are now the defenders of the establishment. Such a twist of fate for them and us. Now many conservatives will likely employ the same tactics against the liberal’s newly-established status-quo. Kharma coming back at you.