Absolutism and The Trojan Horse

Politicians, organizations, and voters in the United States, (and perhaps elsewhere), approach certain and numerous topics as absolutes.

Absolutes are enshrined in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and especially the Bill of Rights. The first amendment contains in the fewest words the most absolutes of any written document. Conflict over the correct interpretation of the second amendment is a partisan and inflammatory issue.

Yet, in practice these “never shalls” often become, “Look, citizens think the government can never abridge the right of the people to peaceably assemble, but the country is going to fail to function if the government can't circumscribe and regulate the right.”

Unsurprisingly, few become enraged over the regulating of the absolutist right to peaceably assemble. When Occupy Wall St. began in Ziccotti Park, New York City (2011), the city enforced regulations for a multitude of purposes include public safety. Of greater importance to the city was the impact the movement might have on transportation for those working in the financial district. A month after it began Mayor Bloomberg and the police forced protesters out and refused to allow the reentry of overnight equipment such as tents and sleeping bags.

In a similar, yet entirely convoluted manner, the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon by Ammon Bundy and a few dozen militants met anger, but not in support of a citizens right to assemble peaceably. They were different in their message, and armament, but they were practicing the right to peaceful assembly.

Free speech, non-establishment, and the second amendment have been the focus of practical restrictions, but some citizens are unable to accept this necessity.

With regards to the right to assemble, restrictions are enforced to secure public safety. But opinions differ where one's right and another's right contact. If the assembled can never harm anyone (in the broadest sense), then there is no right to assembly. Occupy Wall St and the militants harmed those who wished to visit the location unobstructed. They harmed those who owned the property by causing damage. And they harmed those who venerated the property, as they destroyed Native American relics. These examples are the least harm they did, and yet some would say (and did) it was too much.

The right to assemble is less contentious than the big three (speech, religion, and arms) and these two examples provided emphasize this, by being the only significant episodes in recent memory.

But the big three have their proponents for Absolutism: organizations dedicated to obliterating any restricting influence the national, state, or city governments attempt to enshrine in law. Perhaps oddly, the court system is both the friend of these organizations and their foe, depending as the circumstance may be.

A case where the courts favored an absolutist position, was Engel v. Vitale (1862), where, by a six to one majority, the Supreme Court found school prayer unconstitutional, as it violated the first amendment's protection that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. The victorious justices were unwilling to consider any provisions which might have allow prayer to continue, ending the practice entirely, and affirming their singular devotion to this constitutional provision.

The organization supporting the plaintiffs in Engel v. Vitale, was the already venerable American Civil Liberties Union, a stolid absolutist proponent. Since its formation in 1920, the ACLU has been dedicated to the ideology that some rights (speech, non-establishment, privacy, and press) are inviolable.

The other and older organization, similar in thought, as Bundy was to Occupy, is the National Rifle Association. Founded in 1871, this nonprofit doesn't straddle ideological lines as easily as the ACLU, but wields significant power in enforcing its absolutist position.

In this way, both the ACLU and the NRA, along with the citizens who support them, believe in what I call the Trojan horse or beachhead theory.

In short this theory is: if an organization allowed even a tiny deviation from the absolutism expressed by the Bill of Rights, a rival organization could gain for its side, like a beachhead in a war zone, with the opportunity for further advances. A variation, the Trojan horse is as follows. Instead of an obvious antagonistic relationship, a rival agency might attempt to overthrow its establishment rival by claiming both ideologies can co-exist, but with the ultimate intent to burst out upon their unsuspecting foes and disembowel them, as the Dorians did to the Ionians.

Almost everyone is susceptible to one absolutist position or another. Take for example, the author.

In November, citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will be voting on four ballot questions. Currently, Massachusetts has an upper limit on the number of charter schools allowed. But a yes vote for question two will allow the state to approve twelve more a year. Not just twelve new charters, but more each year. This is a Trojan horse strategy, by which the supporters of charter schools will slowly destroy the public school system. They have outspent supporters of public schools by eleven million to seven million. Frighteningly, while all the money spent by those in support of public schools came from in state, two of the Walmart siblings (who live in Arkansas) spent a combined 1.8 million alone to support charter schools. Read more about the issue here.

John Oliver recently did a sharply critical bit on charter schools. As a resident of Massachusetts I imagine we regulate charters better than other states, but for me, that's not the point. I support public schools as foundation of my ideology, and believe every citizen has a unalienable right to a public school. Charter schools are supported by those who ideologically are opposed to public services, and they are determined to bring down the system.

Public schools are not a perfect system, but they can be successful if supported by the community. Charter schools only detract from them.

And so: charter schools are a Trojan horse designed to destroy the public school system.

I can think of many more, but here's an idea.

For those who are reading, I invite you to list your own absolutist Trojan horses or beachheads in the comments below, as I did for the above italicized sentence.

But I ask that no one comment on anyone else's or I will remove the comment. We're trying to avoid conflict. Even if you're trying to be supportive it would open to door for others to comment critically.

See you Monday!