The book I Was a Doctor in Auschwitz was written by Dr. Gisella Perl and published within three years of the end of World War II. The sources used for the book were personal recollections and memories from the life of Dr. Perl from 1940 – 1945. Her story is told in short chapters, like flashbacks in nature. Her purpose in writing this book were made clear in the book’s forward:
This book is a “monument commemorating Nazi bestiality, Nazi sadism, Nazi inhumanity and every individual story, every picture, every description is but a stone in that monument that will stand forever to remind the world of this shameful phase of history and to ask of it vigilance, lest the events of these years be repeated.”[1]
The argument detailing the sadism, brutality and inhumanity of Nazi actions during the Holocaust is an easy one to make. The evidence not only of the author, but of many other survivors is damning. However, while reading her book, I became more fascinated by the ethical dilemmas presented to Dr. Perl and her justifications for her actions during this period of her life.
Dr. Perl describes the confusing collection of arbitrariness that surrounded life in Auschwitz. She puzzled at absurd contradictions like driving newly arrived prisoners selected for cremation to the crematorium in ambulances marked with a red cross. She noted with irony the difference between American beauty parlors and the “beauty parlors” at Auschwitz whose
purpose was the exact opposite that of an American beauty parlor; its purpose was to deprive its unwilling clients of even their last remnants of beauty, freshness, and human appearance. It was one of the typical Nazi Jokes, a creation of their devilish imagination, which served to humiliate their victims and make their short remaining life-span all the more horrible and distressing.[ii]
Not only were situations puzzling, so were the people. Dr. Josef Mengele performed surgery without using any anesthesia, and without intention of sparing the life of the patient, yet insisted on using sterile instruments. He seemed to many observers to derive a perverse pleasure from the selection process and the performance of vivisections on prisoners. A female SS guard named Irma Greze daily inflicted pain, torture and death on prisoners; yet when she demanded an abortion from Dr. Perl at gunpoint, she was terrified of the pain that might be involved in the procedure or recovery.
I found the doctor herself equally as puzzling. Here is one of very few female doctors of her generation who took an oath to do no harm performing over 3000 abortions[iii] without the use of instruments or anesthesia and justifying it with the idea that she was saving the life of the mother who, if she lived until liberation, might be able to have other children. She does not make clear if she discontinued the abortions when pregnancy no longer was punishable by gassing at Auschwitz in the late spring of 1944; two months after her deportation to the ghetto from her home in Sziget and roughly six months prior to her transfer to a prison in Hamburg. She also falsified blood samples of typhus patients to deceive Mengele and save the lives of the patient while continuing to spread the disease throughout the camp, endangering the lives and health of thousands.
I enjoyed reading about her life-renewing turning point at Auschwitz:
I sank down on my bunk, dazed with suffering and fear… but a moment later I was on my feet again. No! I would not let this happen to me! I would come out of the apathy which had enveloped me for the last two months and show the Nazis, show my fellow prisoners that we could keep our human dignity in the face of ever humiliation, every torture…Yes, I was going to remain a human being to the last minute of my life – whenever that would come.[iv]
However, my pride in her triumphant decision was tempered by her lack of defiance to Mengele in the performance of her duties. I was saddened by her denial of human dignity to those she robbed of the opportunity to live while justifying her actions as necessary in order for her to live.
The horrors she endured at Auschwitz seemed idyllic when compared with the conditions when she arrived at Bergen Belsen in 1945. Prisoners entered a smaller camp with no crematorium to burn the dead, so typhus infected dead and dying bodies were piled in heaps. They were left without food, water, and medicine in a lice and typhus infested environment to slowly die. Prisoners became desperate enough for food that they consumed the internal organs of the corpses. Dr. Perl and the prisoners at Bergen Belsen were liberated by the British April 15, 1945. While the soldiers went to work to bury the dead, Dr. Perl led a team of doctors in an attempt to bring as many prisoners back to health as possible. She was given the opportunity to immigrate to Palestine and attempted to locate her husband and son. When she learned that her husband was beaten to death a short time before the liberation and her son was cremated, she made her second attempt at suicide; her first was upon her arrival at Auschwitz almost three years earlier. She would have perished if not for the efforts of Abbé Brand, a French Priest.
The ethical dilemmas faced by the different individuals and groups we have studied this semester are difficult ones. I have been fascinated by the various justifications used for the inhumane and immoral actions during this period of history. I wonder if the justifications used are good enough to satisfy the consciences of those who give them once the danger of looming death has passed. I hope that it would be impossible for any participant in these acts of genocide to walk away from the ethical breeches of the period without any regrets.
I also find myself questioning the assertion that there were no other choices that could be made in these situations. Did Dr. Perl really have “no other choice”? I am sure that she was convinced that other options were not available. Yet, stories are beginning to emerge about those who did stand up to Nazi orders and were not killed for doing so. There was a midwife named Stanislawa Leczynska[v] who worked in three different blocks in Auschwitz. She delivered 3000 babies in 21 months. Although only 1% lived to be liberated, she retained her dignity, as did the mothers who cared for their weak children for the few short months they did live. They made these choices under the same possible conditions of death if their actions were discovered. Making correct moral choices is always an option, but not always the easiest choice to make.When I consider the story of Dr. Gisella Perl, I see instances of her being a victim of Nazi brutality, but I also see ways in which she was also a perpetrator of the deaths of more than 3000 Jews by her own hand. Not even Hitler himself can claim to have killed 3000 Jews with his bare hands. Justifications for their actions used by the perpetrators we have studied this semester are hollow and unsatisfying. For me, the justifications of Dr. Perl for her actions left me conflicted. I see within the doctor a perpetrator of death, a victim of Nazi brutality and a person who did all in her power to save the lives of Jewish women. Which one is it? Can it be all of them together? Was it possible for her to find peace before she died in 1988? Like Alma the Younger, Dr. Perl dedicated the remainder of her life to practicing her profession and helping thousands of women to usher in new life. She dedicated her services in women’s clinics in New York and Israel. Regret for her ethical breeches must have been like a shadow. Redemption is possible, but I doubt that she was able to purge the memories of her interment out of her mind.
[ii]
[iii]
[iv]
[v]
Thursday, December 11, 2008
New York Trip
On November 14-16, 2008, I traveled with SVU to New York City to see two plays on Broadway. The whole group of SVU students saw Wicked on Friday night, and In the Heights on Saturday afternoon. Johanna Shiraki and I were able to see a third play, Gypsy, on Saturday night. I had an incredible time!
I was impressed by the uniqueness of the theatres on Broadway. There were varying degrees of opulence in the theatres as well as different views of the stage. The Richard Rogers theatre where I saw In the Heights had a steep mezzanine level and a great view of the whole stage. The St. James theatre where I saw Gypsy had a gradual incline on the Orchestra level, so even though my seat was close to the stage, my view was semi-obstructed by the people seated in front of me. My seat for Wicked was fabulous and I had a full view of the stage and sat house right about 10 feet over the stage.
There seemed to be a more formal atmosphere in the audience for the evening performances than the matinee. People were more dressed up, especially the drag queens in their sequins and mink. There was an excitement in the air and I felt like I was about to take part in something special. Each production was successful at making the world disappear during their performance. In two days I went to Oz, Washington Heights, and on the road with Rose and her troupe through the magic of theatre.
Wicked was the highlight of the trip. I had heard a little bit about the play before going to see it, but I fought the urge to research it before going to New York. I didn’t want to have any preconceived ideas or expectations. I was delighted by the story and identified with Elphaba on multiple levels. I loved the music! I especially liked the songs Popular, Defying Gravity, For Good, I’m Not That Girl, and As Long As You’re Mine. The cast had phenomenal voices and I have tremendous respect for the dedication they have to their craft. I would have purchased the Original Broadway Cast recording on the trip, but my budget was extremely limited. It would be wonderful if a DVD recording was made of the play. While a movie would be interesting; however, the play and the methods used to portray the magic on stage would be lost.
We took a backstage tour and had a question and answer session with the actors after seeing In the Heights. I wasn’t really interested, because I enjoy the magic from the audience. I took a few pictures during the tour with the stage lights on, but it really didn’t reflect the mood on stage during the performance. The play featured too much hip-hop music for my taste, but I enjoyed the salsa music and dancing. After two years of Spanish I understood a fair amount of the Spanish dialogue.
I enjoyed seeing Gypsy because it was an opportunity to see Patti LuPone perform. She won the Tony for her performance. It was marvelous. My favorite scene in the play featured the song Ya Gotta Have a Gimmick. I laughed out loud. The strippers were all older, sagging and washed up, not just lacking talent, so it was hilarious.
I am very glad I was able to go on this trip and watch true professionals at work. I am more in love with the theatre than ever before.
I was impressed by the uniqueness of the theatres on Broadway. There were varying degrees of opulence in the theatres as well as different views of the stage. The Richard Rogers theatre where I saw In the Heights had a steep mezzanine level and a great view of the whole stage. The St. James theatre where I saw Gypsy had a gradual incline on the Orchestra level, so even though my seat was close to the stage, my view was semi-obstructed by the people seated in front of me. My seat for Wicked was fabulous and I had a full view of the stage and sat house right about 10 feet over the stage.
There seemed to be a more formal atmosphere in the audience for the evening performances than the matinee. People were more dressed up, especially the drag queens in their sequins and mink. There was an excitement in the air and I felt like I was about to take part in something special. Each production was successful at making the world disappear during their performance. In two days I went to Oz, Washington Heights, and on the road with Rose and her troupe through the magic of theatre.
Wicked was the highlight of the trip. I had heard a little bit about the play before going to see it, but I fought the urge to research it before going to New York. I didn’t want to have any preconceived ideas or expectations. I was delighted by the story and identified with Elphaba on multiple levels. I loved the music! I especially liked the songs Popular, Defying Gravity, For Good, I’m Not That Girl, and As Long As You’re Mine. The cast had phenomenal voices and I have tremendous respect for the dedication they have to their craft. I would have purchased the Original Broadway Cast recording on the trip, but my budget was extremely limited. It would be wonderful if a DVD recording was made of the play. While a movie would be interesting; however, the play and the methods used to portray the magic on stage would be lost.
We took a backstage tour and had a question and answer session with the actors after seeing In the Heights. I wasn’t really interested, because I enjoy the magic from the audience. I took a few pictures during the tour with the stage lights on, but it really didn’t reflect the mood on stage during the performance. The play featured too much hip-hop music for my taste, but I enjoyed the salsa music and dancing. After two years of Spanish I understood a fair amount of the Spanish dialogue.
I enjoyed seeing Gypsy because it was an opportunity to see Patti LuPone perform. She won the Tony for her performance. It was marvelous. My favorite scene in the play featured the song Ya Gotta Have a Gimmick. I laughed out loud. The strippers were all older, sagging and washed up, not just lacking talent, so it was hilarious.
I am very glad I was able to go on this trip and watch true professionals at work. I am more in love with the theatre than ever before.
Life Lessons from Literature
The epic poems and plays that we read in class this semester have reinforced a belief that I have had since childhood: There is something to be learned from every person we meet and every situation we encounter. The prophet Nephi likened the scriptures to his people for their profit and learning (Book of Mormon 46); I apply the same technique to fictional characters in movies, books, and plays. The characters we have followed in our readings may have lived thousands of years ago in far away places, yet their adventures and struggles can entertain us and teach us valuable lessons.
Regardless of how sophisticated modern men think they are, the modern world is still teaming with human beings full of weaknesses and human tendencies that plagued medieval and ancient people centuries ago. Differences in values and culture are variables that distract the casual reader from learning from the past in the same way they distract the casual observer of the modern world from learning from the life that surrounds him. With a little effort, we can increase our wisdom by learning from their successes and failures instead of insisting on making similar mistakes ourselves. The themes in our readings this semester that resonated with me fell into the categories of advice, questions to ponder, and moral lessons.
The Iliad contains an example of a moral lesson. Achilles was a unique character in this work because he had two fates, he knew them both, and he consciously chose the one he preferred. His mother told him that he could choose to remain at the ships and die at a ripe old age without kleos, or he could lay siege to Troy, die young, and gain immortality on the lips of men. (Homer, Iliad 267) While a modern reader wouldn’t necessarily be faced with choosing between the same specific fates, he often faces the moral dilemma on whether to choose a safe, long, ordinary life or risk it for excitement, fame, wealth or passion. We learn from Achilles that the choices we make in our life are important, and through our choices we have the ability to decide our fate.
The Odyssey teaches us about the transition from child to man through the example of Odysseus’ son Telemachus. Early in the work, Telemachus realizes that he must take on the responsibilities of head of the household before the suitors squander his inheritance. He follows the counsel of the gods and his elders, learns that his father is alive, and returns home in time to be reunited with his father. As father and son prepare to take their revenge, Telemachus makes a critical error by leaving the door ajar where the arms were stored. Instead of acting childish and blaming a servant for the misdeed, he accepted responsibility for his act in the presence of his father. Modern teenagers should be able to see some connection to Telemachus. They stand in the gulf between childhood and adulthood, wanting to be treated as an adult while continuing to behave as a child. I have often told my teenagers that I would treat them as an adult only when they chose to act like an adult. Now I can look to Odysseus to back me up, because from the moment Telemachus accepted responsibility for his misdeed, Odysseus treated him as a grown man and his equal.
Great literature has the ability to pose timeless questions for the reader to ponder. One of the many themes in The Odyssey concerns the nature of nobility. A question arises as the story unfolds: Is nobility something in the blood or is it taught? This type of question is more familiar to the modern reader as the familiar “Nature or Nurture” Argument. Lord Aegyptius, the swineherd Eumaeus, the suitors and Telemachus were all born into nobility, yet all did not act the part. Lora Aegyptius was lax in training his son Eurynomus the ways of nobility. Eurynomus was among the group of suitors abusing the hospitality of Odysseus’ estate. Unlike Eurynomus, most of the suitors did not have fathers around to mold their noble character because they were off fighting at Troy. Telemachus’ father was at Troy, but he had the benefit of a father figure in the swineherd Eumaeus to teach him proper noble behavior. Both Telemachus and Eumaeus acted as nobility should; the suitors, including Eurynomus, did not act nobly yet all had noble blood. It is true that modern readers don’t concern themselves much with nobility, but The Odyssey’s argument favoring nurture over nature can be applied to understanding the influence of fathers on sons in a society with an increasing number of single mothers raising boys alone.
Most of the lessons I take with me from reading these works falls under the category of advice. The Odyssey, Inferno and The Aeneid all raise caution toward seductive women and The Aeneid cautions not to let passions deter you from greater aims. I think this applies to young men as they prepare to serve missions. Oedipus the King and King Lear warn readers of the danger in making hasty judgment. This advice applies not only to kings, but to anyone in a position of responsibility and leadership. Vanity is a theme addressed in King Lear as he asks his daughters to express verbally how much they love him in order to help him decide on how to divide up his kingdom between them. We learn that you should beware of people who tell you what you want to hear. This is particularly useful advice during an election year in the modern world. And we learn from Oedipus and Dido not to be hasty to vow publically that you will act in a particular way; it might cost you your sight or your life. Now that I have taken the opportunity to read these classic works of literature, I can see why people love them enough to read them again. They can be tough to get into at first, but they are well worth the effort. I found it easy to glean modern day application from the characters and I enjoyed the rich imagery woven by each well-crafted line. And like the scriptures, I anticipate that every new reading will increase my perspective and enlarge my understanding of humanity and of myself.
Regardless of how sophisticated modern men think they are, the modern world is still teaming with human beings full of weaknesses and human tendencies that plagued medieval and ancient people centuries ago. Differences in values and culture are variables that distract the casual reader from learning from the past in the same way they distract the casual observer of the modern world from learning from the life that surrounds him. With a little effort, we can increase our wisdom by learning from their successes and failures instead of insisting on making similar mistakes ourselves. The themes in our readings this semester that resonated with me fell into the categories of advice, questions to ponder, and moral lessons.
The Iliad contains an example of a moral lesson. Achilles was a unique character in this work because he had two fates, he knew them both, and he consciously chose the one he preferred. His mother told him that he could choose to remain at the ships and die at a ripe old age without kleos, or he could lay siege to Troy, die young, and gain immortality on the lips of men. (Homer, Iliad 267) While a modern reader wouldn’t necessarily be faced with choosing between the same specific fates, he often faces the moral dilemma on whether to choose a safe, long, ordinary life or risk it for excitement, fame, wealth or passion. We learn from Achilles that the choices we make in our life are important, and through our choices we have the ability to decide our fate.
The Odyssey teaches us about the transition from child to man through the example of Odysseus’ son Telemachus. Early in the work, Telemachus realizes that he must take on the responsibilities of head of the household before the suitors squander his inheritance. He follows the counsel of the gods and his elders, learns that his father is alive, and returns home in time to be reunited with his father. As father and son prepare to take their revenge, Telemachus makes a critical error by leaving the door ajar where the arms were stored. Instead of acting childish and blaming a servant for the misdeed, he accepted responsibility for his act in the presence of his father. Modern teenagers should be able to see some connection to Telemachus. They stand in the gulf between childhood and adulthood, wanting to be treated as an adult while continuing to behave as a child. I have often told my teenagers that I would treat them as an adult only when they chose to act like an adult. Now I can look to Odysseus to back me up, because from the moment Telemachus accepted responsibility for his misdeed, Odysseus treated him as a grown man and his equal.
Great literature has the ability to pose timeless questions for the reader to ponder. One of the many themes in The Odyssey concerns the nature of nobility. A question arises as the story unfolds: Is nobility something in the blood or is it taught? This type of question is more familiar to the modern reader as the familiar “Nature or Nurture” Argument. Lord Aegyptius, the swineherd Eumaeus, the suitors and Telemachus were all born into nobility, yet all did not act the part. Lora Aegyptius was lax in training his son Eurynomus the ways of nobility. Eurynomus was among the group of suitors abusing the hospitality of Odysseus’ estate. Unlike Eurynomus, most of the suitors did not have fathers around to mold their noble character because they were off fighting at Troy. Telemachus’ father was at Troy, but he had the benefit of a father figure in the swineherd Eumaeus to teach him proper noble behavior. Both Telemachus and Eumaeus acted as nobility should; the suitors, including Eurynomus, did not act nobly yet all had noble blood. It is true that modern readers don’t concern themselves much with nobility, but The Odyssey’s argument favoring nurture over nature can be applied to understanding the influence of fathers on sons in a society with an increasing number of single mothers raising boys alone.
Most of the lessons I take with me from reading these works falls under the category of advice. The Odyssey, Inferno and The Aeneid all raise caution toward seductive women and The Aeneid cautions not to let passions deter you from greater aims. I think this applies to young men as they prepare to serve missions. Oedipus the King and King Lear warn readers of the danger in making hasty judgment. This advice applies not only to kings, but to anyone in a position of responsibility and leadership. Vanity is a theme addressed in King Lear as he asks his daughters to express verbally how much they love him in order to help him decide on how to divide up his kingdom between them. We learn that you should beware of people who tell you what you want to hear. This is particularly useful advice during an election year in the modern world. And we learn from Oedipus and Dido not to be hasty to vow publically that you will act in a particular way; it might cost you your sight or your life. Now that I have taken the opportunity to read these classic works of literature, I can see why people love them enough to read them again. They can be tough to get into at first, but they are well worth the effort. I found it easy to glean modern day application from the characters and I enjoyed the rich imagery woven by each well-crafted line. And like the scriptures, I anticipate that every new reading will increase my perspective and enlarge my understanding of humanity and of myself.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Obedience and Political Authority
My topic is the relationship between obedience and political authority. My assertion is that obedience to a law or the directive of a ruler is considered consent, and that obedience provides sufficient entitlement to authority. I will begin by discussing political authority and how power and entitlement of the state are connected to the actions of individuals. Next I will discuss the nature of obedience, including the roles that coercion and justice play in the decision of individuals to obey when ruled. I will then present my ideas about obedience as consent and the problems it eliminates in consent theory. I will conclude by addressing why consent cannot create an obligation for future obedience.
“Rulers are said to have not only the power to make and enforce rules but also the entitlement to do so. And when they do so, they are said to have (political) authority.”[1] Power and entitlement must both be present. Every human being is born under an authority that has power to coerce, be it a parent, tribal leader, dictator, bureaucratic entity of a state, or even a God. Regardless of the time, place or circumstances of our birth, we are born with boundaries and rules in place to govern our actions. A. John Simmons thinks that Rousseau recognized that there are obstacles to the fulfillment of our desires and that there are moral constraints on our actions even though he claims that man is born free.[2] Even recognizing these areas of constraint, Rousseau expressed concern with the legitimacy of governmental coercion within specified areas that he believed were only able to be voluntarily given by the consent of the individual governed. The state of nature thought experiment of Hobbes, Locke and others, as well as Hampton’s idea of a political convention are introduced into a discussion of political authority to explain how those who are ruled could have consented to both the power and the authority of a ruler. There are two very big problems with this pre-political authority consent. First, the consent of the original contract-makers does not have the power to create or obligate consent in others. Contracts are only binding to the parties that enter into the agreement. Second, ideas about the creation of political authority without prior existing political authority do nothing to help one understand his relationship to a government he inherited at birth.
The following chart represents a state. Rulers are those who have political authority. The body politic, which includes rulers, is defined as those who have the power to choose the rulers, consent to changes in state structure, and consent to the laws of the state. Inhabitants of a territory, defined as those who have the power to obey or disobey the laws, includes the previous two groups.
Rulers
Body Politic
Inhabitants of territory
All individuals residing or traveling within the territorial boundaries of a state are able to be punished for breaking the laws of the state, regardless of citizenship, status, sex, race, gender, age or religion. These individuals include people such as resident aliens, travelers and children who are not part of the body politic. According to Hampton, to be mastered is to be subject to the use of coercion in a way that disables one from participation in the process of creating or changing a governing convention.”[3]Prohibition from participating in the body politic places them in a master/slave relationship with the state, which creates a problem for consent theorists.
It does not seem just to be punished for disobedience to laws and rulers they did not consent to, especially if they are prohibited from participation in the body politic. They cannot consent, yet they are not free to disregard the laws of the territory without fear of consequences. All those who risk being coerced or killed by a state should have the ability to consent to its laws in a way that is stronger than merely their presence in the territory. When voting is considered consent, and only those within the body politic vote, then those represented in the grey area of the above chart are only ruled through coercion, making the government illegitimate. “The state must not only receive the convention consent of the people, which merely makes it authoritative in that territory, but also their endorsement consent, which makes it not just a state but a legitimate state”.[4]Legitimacy arises only through the moral justification of individuals.
Some wonder, if the government is protecting your life, liberty, and property, does it matter if you have not consented to the government’s rule? I would reply that governments have many possible motivations for protecting the life, liberty and property of its citizens: self interest (in order to secure power and stability) , manipulation in order to increase power, it is considered part of the “contract”, or it is the right thing to do. All individuals in a state cannot possibly know the true motivations of their government. The individual must use his ability to reason to determine what is best for him and convey through some form of consent his willingness to obey laws regardless of benefits that governments provide.
According to Hampton “a person’s rightful control over others seems to arise from that person’s authority; and authority is about the entitlement to rule. Connected to this entitlement is the obligation the subjects have to obey the authoritative ruler’s commands.”[5] Joseph Raz defines the obligation connected to political authority as follows:
Person x has political authority over person y if and only if the fact that x requires y to perform some action p gives y a reason to do p, regardless of what p is, where this reason purports to override all (or almost all) reasons he may have not to do p.
The idea that someone would be obligated to obey regardless of the directive seems “to limit our freedom or impose on our will.”[6] While it sounds reasonable and desirable for a person to obey just laws, the commitment to obedience in the future poses a problem. Future laws may not be just. Future rulers may not be just. We may have reasons in the future to withdraw our consent because of other obligations. If the initial consent to political authority obligates us to obey that authority regardless of the content of their directives in the future, then we really only give our consent once. Those in authority would have little incentive to be just with all that consent plus the power to force their will.
According to Hampton, power alone does not supply entitlement to rule[7], yet tyrants still feel entitled to coerce. What situation communicates to a tyrant the entitlement to use coercion? Historically, it appears that without sustained, persuasive dissent, rulers do not feel any obligation to change their course. The act of obedience to a law communicates consent to the authority that declares the law. Obedience is an individual decision that cannot be forced, not even by God himself. Philosophers have emphasized the importance of retaining the power of individual choice. Raz in his definition of political authority recognizes the need to retain the ability to disobey a command. Even Hobbes, who asserts that an individual must alienate his natural right to self-governance, includes the necessity for him to be able to withdraw his consent when he feels his life is threatened by the sovereign.
Coercion by a ruler admittedly influences the decision to obey, but it does not have the power to eliminate the option of disobedience. If an individual chooses to disobey, the surety of consequences to his choice does not force him to obey. The choice to disobey when faced with consequences that threaten life and limb has sufficient power to challenge authority. The individual retains unto himself the ability to determine the justice of the laws he is given, which results in varying conceptions of justice within a state. The future actions of each individual are unknown to both the individual and to the rulers. The willingness to obey is an act of faith by the governed based on their individual perception of how the regime will behave. If individuals perceive the regime to be unjust they will be less likely to obey.
It seems logical that the only kind of consent that has the power to threaten the stability of political authority would have the power to authorize the use of political authority. Only disobedience that risks coercion or death carries sufficient weight to threaten political authority regardless of the legitimacy of the regime. When enough people in a territory are willing to withdraw their obedience over time, the stability of the political authority begins to deteriorate. The ability to withdraw consent through disobedience to the law is the only power that checks the state’s power to make and enforce the law. Conversely, the ability to disobey laws is kept in check by the coercive power of the state. The act of obedience acknowledges the presence of authority and demonstrates consent to the state’s use of coercion to enforce laws, which sustains the authority of the rulers.
When obedience is viewed as consent, the master/slave problem outside of the body politic is eliminated. All individuals within a given territory, including children and resident aliens, now have the same ability to directly consent by obeying the laws. In obeying the laws of the territory, those not in the body politic consent to the authority and can justly be punished for disobedience to the laws.
There are many reasons why groups within a state would desire to remove their consent to be governed. Some groups are too different from the rest of society. Sometimes laws restrict groups from displaying particular differences, or penalize them for their differences. Some groups are threatened with violence by others in the society or are made the target of propaganda. If a group of people within a state no longer consent to be governed by a particular regime, they have very few options available to them. They can choose to disobey the laws and risk fines, imprisonment or death. They can move to a place where they will consent to be governed; but where do they go if a regime that reflects their interests does not exist? Finally, they can change the regime through the established legal process, through revolution, or civil war. Therefore, it can be very dangerous for rulers to ignore minorities or to use coercion to handle dissent.
When a law is considered unjust by enough individuals who choose to disobey the law it creates a problem for the government. The regime is forced to act to retain stability. Those actions have historically included repealing the unjust law (e.g. prohibition in the U.S.), granting previously withheld rights or privileges (e.g. napoleonic reforms in France), or using the coercive powers of the state (Stalin, Hitler, etc.). Disobedience, whether civil or violent, is only effective against unjust laws if sufficient numbers in the society are willing to suffer coercion or death and withstand state retaliation over time. The number of disobedient individuals, the amount of suffering and the length of time depend on the arrogance of the regime in power.
When an unjust law is obeyed, those who obey it communicate to the rulers that the injustice is not worth the risk of coercion or death for their defiance. Individuals imply that justice is of less value to them than their other interests. This situation does not pose any problems for a government. Stability is not threatened when there is obedience. Even if a government passes a law, and obedience to that law has unforeseen consequences, the government’s stability remains until individuals decide to disobey the law. When the laws are just and individuals obey the laws, it is a win/win situation for everyone. Power, coupled with the consent derived from the obedience of individuals, seems sufficient to supply entitlement to political authority; however, it does not generate a continued obligation to obey regardless of the content of a ruler’s directive.
I am not convinced that the lack of obligation poses a problem for consent theory. I believe that obligation is irrational and unreasonable if obedience is viewed as consent and consent is sufficient for obligation. There are many people in the world who obey tyrants. Their obedience demonstrates to others, especially to the ruler, that they are willing to be ruled unjustly and through coercion. Individually they have their particular reasons for obeying under these conditions. Regardless of their reason, it does not necessarily follow that they feel obligated to continue to obey. On the opposite end of the justice spectrum, our obedience to God shows our willingness to let him lead us, but it does not necessarily follow that we have a continual obligation to always do his will without individually understanding and accepting what we are being asked to do. Obligating ourselves to continually obey a ruler, regardless of the content of his directives, puts us in the position where using our ability to reason becomes unnecessary. Obligation is connected to a particular law (not a ruler) only if individuals are given means to consent to the law and consent to the rulers who make the laws, however, this obligation is not attached to every law irrespective of their content. “There has never been, and is not now, agreement on the nature of justice”.[8] Individuals determine a law’s justice and act according to their determination. A ruler’s authority comes from the obedience of individuals who base their obedience on a variety of criteria.
[
1] Political Authority, Jean Hampton p.4
[2] Moral Principles and Political Obligation by A. John Simmons p.62
[3] Hampton p 90
[4] Ibid. p. 180
[5] Ibid. p.4
[6] Simmons p.7
[7] Hampton p.4
[8] Ibid. 122
“Rulers are said to have not only the power to make and enforce rules but also the entitlement to do so. And when they do so, they are said to have (political) authority.”[1] Power and entitlement must both be present. Every human being is born under an authority that has power to coerce, be it a parent, tribal leader, dictator, bureaucratic entity of a state, or even a God. Regardless of the time, place or circumstances of our birth, we are born with boundaries and rules in place to govern our actions. A. John Simmons thinks that Rousseau recognized that there are obstacles to the fulfillment of our desires and that there are moral constraints on our actions even though he claims that man is born free.[2] Even recognizing these areas of constraint, Rousseau expressed concern with the legitimacy of governmental coercion within specified areas that he believed were only able to be voluntarily given by the consent of the individual governed. The state of nature thought experiment of Hobbes, Locke and others, as well as Hampton’s idea of a political convention are introduced into a discussion of political authority to explain how those who are ruled could have consented to both the power and the authority of a ruler. There are two very big problems with this pre-political authority consent. First, the consent of the original contract-makers does not have the power to create or obligate consent in others. Contracts are only binding to the parties that enter into the agreement. Second, ideas about the creation of political authority without prior existing political authority do nothing to help one understand his relationship to a government he inherited at birth.
The following chart represents a state. Rulers are those who have political authority. The body politic, which includes rulers, is defined as those who have the power to choose the rulers, consent to changes in state structure, and consent to the laws of the state. Inhabitants of a territory, defined as those who have the power to obey or disobey the laws, includes the previous two groups.
Rulers
Body Politic
Inhabitants of territory
All individuals residing or traveling within the territorial boundaries of a state are able to be punished for breaking the laws of the state, regardless of citizenship, status, sex, race, gender, age or religion. These individuals include people such as resident aliens, travelers and children who are not part of the body politic. According to Hampton, to be mastered is to be subject to the use of coercion in a way that disables one from participation in the process of creating or changing a governing convention.”[3]Prohibition from participating in the body politic places them in a master/slave relationship with the state, which creates a problem for consent theorists.
It does not seem just to be punished for disobedience to laws and rulers they did not consent to, especially if they are prohibited from participation in the body politic. They cannot consent, yet they are not free to disregard the laws of the territory without fear of consequences. All those who risk being coerced or killed by a state should have the ability to consent to its laws in a way that is stronger than merely their presence in the territory. When voting is considered consent, and only those within the body politic vote, then those represented in the grey area of the above chart are only ruled through coercion, making the government illegitimate. “The state must not only receive the convention consent of the people, which merely makes it authoritative in that territory, but also their endorsement consent, which makes it not just a state but a legitimate state”.[4]Legitimacy arises only through the moral justification of individuals.
Some wonder, if the government is protecting your life, liberty, and property, does it matter if you have not consented to the government’s rule? I would reply that governments have many possible motivations for protecting the life, liberty and property of its citizens: self interest (in order to secure power and stability) , manipulation in order to increase power, it is considered part of the “contract”, or it is the right thing to do. All individuals in a state cannot possibly know the true motivations of their government. The individual must use his ability to reason to determine what is best for him and convey through some form of consent his willingness to obey laws regardless of benefits that governments provide.
According to Hampton “a person’s rightful control over others seems to arise from that person’s authority; and authority is about the entitlement to rule. Connected to this entitlement is the obligation the subjects have to obey the authoritative ruler’s commands.”[5] Joseph Raz defines the obligation connected to political authority as follows:
Person x has political authority over person y if and only if the fact that x requires y to perform some action p gives y a reason to do p, regardless of what p is, where this reason purports to override all (or almost all) reasons he may have not to do p.
The idea that someone would be obligated to obey regardless of the directive seems “to limit our freedom or impose on our will.”[6] While it sounds reasonable and desirable for a person to obey just laws, the commitment to obedience in the future poses a problem. Future laws may not be just. Future rulers may not be just. We may have reasons in the future to withdraw our consent because of other obligations. If the initial consent to political authority obligates us to obey that authority regardless of the content of their directives in the future, then we really only give our consent once. Those in authority would have little incentive to be just with all that consent plus the power to force their will.
According to Hampton, power alone does not supply entitlement to rule[7], yet tyrants still feel entitled to coerce. What situation communicates to a tyrant the entitlement to use coercion? Historically, it appears that without sustained, persuasive dissent, rulers do not feel any obligation to change their course. The act of obedience to a law communicates consent to the authority that declares the law. Obedience is an individual decision that cannot be forced, not even by God himself. Philosophers have emphasized the importance of retaining the power of individual choice. Raz in his definition of political authority recognizes the need to retain the ability to disobey a command. Even Hobbes, who asserts that an individual must alienate his natural right to self-governance, includes the necessity for him to be able to withdraw his consent when he feels his life is threatened by the sovereign.
Coercion by a ruler admittedly influences the decision to obey, but it does not have the power to eliminate the option of disobedience. If an individual chooses to disobey, the surety of consequences to his choice does not force him to obey. The choice to disobey when faced with consequences that threaten life and limb has sufficient power to challenge authority. The individual retains unto himself the ability to determine the justice of the laws he is given, which results in varying conceptions of justice within a state. The future actions of each individual are unknown to both the individual and to the rulers. The willingness to obey is an act of faith by the governed based on their individual perception of how the regime will behave. If individuals perceive the regime to be unjust they will be less likely to obey.
It seems logical that the only kind of consent that has the power to threaten the stability of political authority would have the power to authorize the use of political authority. Only disobedience that risks coercion or death carries sufficient weight to threaten political authority regardless of the legitimacy of the regime. When enough people in a territory are willing to withdraw their obedience over time, the stability of the political authority begins to deteriorate. The ability to withdraw consent through disobedience to the law is the only power that checks the state’s power to make and enforce the law. Conversely, the ability to disobey laws is kept in check by the coercive power of the state. The act of obedience acknowledges the presence of authority and demonstrates consent to the state’s use of coercion to enforce laws, which sustains the authority of the rulers.
When obedience is viewed as consent, the master/slave problem outside of the body politic is eliminated. All individuals within a given territory, including children and resident aliens, now have the same ability to directly consent by obeying the laws. In obeying the laws of the territory, those not in the body politic consent to the authority and can justly be punished for disobedience to the laws.
There are many reasons why groups within a state would desire to remove their consent to be governed. Some groups are too different from the rest of society. Sometimes laws restrict groups from displaying particular differences, or penalize them for their differences. Some groups are threatened with violence by others in the society or are made the target of propaganda. If a group of people within a state no longer consent to be governed by a particular regime, they have very few options available to them. They can choose to disobey the laws and risk fines, imprisonment or death. They can move to a place where they will consent to be governed; but where do they go if a regime that reflects their interests does not exist? Finally, they can change the regime through the established legal process, through revolution, or civil war. Therefore, it can be very dangerous for rulers to ignore minorities or to use coercion to handle dissent.
When a law is considered unjust by enough individuals who choose to disobey the law it creates a problem for the government. The regime is forced to act to retain stability. Those actions have historically included repealing the unjust law (e.g. prohibition in the U.S.), granting previously withheld rights or privileges (e.g. napoleonic reforms in France), or using the coercive powers of the state (Stalin, Hitler, etc.). Disobedience, whether civil or violent, is only effective against unjust laws if sufficient numbers in the society are willing to suffer coercion or death and withstand state retaliation over time. The number of disobedient individuals, the amount of suffering and the length of time depend on the arrogance of the regime in power.
When an unjust law is obeyed, those who obey it communicate to the rulers that the injustice is not worth the risk of coercion or death for their defiance. Individuals imply that justice is of less value to them than their other interests. This situation does not pose any problems for a government. Stability is not threatened when there is obedience. Even if a government passes a law, and obedience to that law has unforeseen consequences, the government’s stability remains until individuals decide to disobey the law. When the laws are just and individuals obey the laws, it is a win/win situation for everyone. Power, coupled with the consent derived from the obedience of individuals, seems sufficient to supply entitlement to political authority; however, it does not generate a continued obligation to obey regardless of the content of a ruler’s directive.
I am not convinced that the lack of obligation poses a problem for consent theory. I believe that obligation is irrational and unreasonable if obedience is viewed as consent and consent is sufficient for obligation. There are many people in the world who obey tyrants. Their obedience demonstrates to others, especially to the ruler, that they are willing to be ruled unjustly and through coercion. Individually they have their particular reasons for obeying under these conditions. Regardless of their reason, it does not necessarily follow that they feel obligated to continue to obey. On the opposite end of the justice spectrum, our obedience to God shows our willingness to let him lead us, but it does not necessarily follow that we have a continual obligation to always do his will without individually understanding and accepting what we are being asked to do. Obligating ourselves to continually obey a ruler, regardless of the content of his directives, puts us in the position where using our ability to reason becomes unnecessary. Obligation is connected to a particular law (not a ruler) only if individuals are given means to consent to the law and consent to the rulers who make the laws, however, this obligation is not attached to every law irrespective of their content. “There has never been, and is not now, agreement on the nature of justice”.[8] Individuals determine a law’s justice and act according to their determination. A ruler’s authority comes from the obedience of individuals who base their obedience on a variety of criteria.
[
1] Political Authority, Jean Hampton p.4
[2] Moral Principles and Political Obligation by A. John Simmons p.62
[3] Hampton p 90
[4] Ibid. p. 180
[5] Ibid. p.4
[6] Simmons p.7
[7] Hampton p.4
[8] Ibid. 122
I Can't Tell You Why
I began this essay on the beating of Rodney King intending to share facts that would add perspective to the infamous videotape. I didn’t believe that the tape told the whole story. My goal was not to excuse the behavior of the officers. I hoped to understand the reason Sergeant Stacey Koon directed officers Lawrence Powell, Timothy Wind and Ted Brisneo to beat King the night of March 3, 1991.
First, I read Koon’s account in his book Presumed Guilty – The Tragedy of the Rodney King Affair. Koon was the highest ranking officer present when King was beaten. Koon was directly involved in the case and within feet of the beating. I thought I had an accurate picture of what happened. Then, I read Lying Eyes – The Truth Behind the Corruption and Brutality of the LAPD and the Beating of Rodney King by Tom Owens. Owens was hired by Rodney King’s attorney to conduct an independent investigation of the beating in preparation for King’s civil lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles. I was puzzled by the substantially different accounts of events. I was shocked at the sloppy investigative procedures followed by the LAPD Internal Affairs Division, and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. Now, I wish that I could understand the decisions and motivations of the LAPD, Internal Affairs, and the legal teams that represented the accused officers.
The videotaped beating of Rodney King
Shortly after midnight in the foothills of Los Angeles, Officer Lawrence Powell hit Rodney King. His metal baton struck King in the arms, right clavicle, shoulder and chest. King landed face first on the asphalt. Officers struck him up to a dozen times before stepping back to evaluate their use of force. Would King lie down on his stomach with his arms and legs spread out as instructed? No, not yet. In a twelve second flurry, King took fourteen blows: three in the upper torso, two in the back, two in the shoulder, one in the buttocks and six in the arm. The last blow to the arm from Officer Timothy Wind sent King face first into the asphalt. Yet King cocks his left knee and rises once again.
Officers Wind and Powell continue to hit King. In thirty-four seconds they deliver one blow to the knee, one to the hand, two to the buttocks, two to the ankle, two to the thigh, three to the leg, one to the shoulder and five to the back before Officer Brisneo sends King falling face first into the asphalt with a kick to the back between his shoulder blades. In less than a second King begins swinging his left arm toward Brisneo. Powell and Wind respond with blows to the right arm. King continues to rise to his hands and knees and turns toward Powell.
In the final twelve seconds, King is hit in the arm three times, in the buttocks once, and in the back four times. He is kicked in the rear shoulder area three times by Officer Wind. Finally, King puts his hands on his head. Powell hands his handcuffs to Brisneo. But, within ten seconds, King removes his left hand and renews the struggle with the police. The struggle ends when multiple officers use foot pressure to stop King’s resistance.
The video record of the beating of Rodney King lasted eighty-two seconds. The beating was brutal and seemingly unjustified. All over the world people of every race and position called for punishment of the officers involved. Old wounds were reopened, old prejudices rekindled. All because of what was on the tape. The videotape was only a small piece of a larger puzzle. Most don’t know that the edited version they saw only showed the end of the exchange between King and police. The unedited tape shot by George Holliday was twelve minutes long.
High Speed Chase
Officer Melanie Singer was patrolling the Foothill Freeway west of Burbank in her California Highway Patrol cruiser shortly before midnight. Her partner was her husband Officer Tim Singer. She noticed a car quickly approaching in her rearview mirror. In order to assess the speed of the car, she exited at Sunland Boulevard. She re-entered the freeway behind the speeding car. She quickly accelerated and arrived at her vehicle’s top speed of 115 mph. The vehicle was still pulling away from her. She turned on the cruiser’s lights and siren and continued the pursuit. She called for Highway Patrol assistance, but the nearest unit was 20 miles away. The Singers then radioed for assistance from the Los Angeles Police Department.
LAPD’s Foothill Division was a couple of miles away from the chase. Sergeant Stacey Koon listened to the pursuit as he prepared to begin his patrol for the night. Two LAPD police units responded to the Singer’s call and a police helicopter was dispatched to follow the action. Koon got into his squad car and paralleled the chase based on radio reports. The speeding vehicle exited the freeway at Paxton Street. The driver ran the stop sign at the freeway exit ramp. He then made a left turn at the blind curve going 35mph, ignoring the Highway Patrol unit with lights and siren blaring. Now the driver was in an area patrolled by the LAPD, and speeding toward the Foothill Division Station. Two officers from the Los Angeles Unified School District Police had observed the chase and joined in the pursuit. The driver suddenly came to a stop at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Osborne.
Procedurally, this became more than a routine speeding violation while still on the Foothill Freeway. King’s actions made felony stop procedures necessary. No officer would be slowly strolling up to King’s car to ask him if he knew how fast he was going. Highway Patrol officers were in charge of this arrest and proceeded with caution. The sound of the helicopter rotors and the siren from the school police car made communication difficult. Tim Singer commanded the driver of the car to get onto the ground in felony prone position. King didn’t move. Singer repeated his command to the passengers, Freddy Helms and Bryant Allen. They quickly complied and were handcuffed without incident, according to Koon. However, according to Allen, he heard King scream and he looked to see what was happening. Allen was told not to look, hit in the head and pushed to the ground. While handcuffed and on the ground, Allen claimed he was stomped on the back and kicked in the lower neck.
Racism in the LAPD
Koon claims that the race of the suspect was not known until the chase neared its conclusion. This makes accusations of racial profiling unlikely in the King case. Does that mean that racism was not a factor in the minds of any officer or that there is no racism in the LAPD? Of course not. Police forces are made up of human beings that reflect many beliefs, including racist beliefs. Incidents of racial remarks and inappropriate racial references were made public during the trials and investigations. While embarrassing, racist remarks are not confined to the LAPD or police officers.
Personally, I do not see why racism is relevant in the King beating. Would the beating have been more acceptable if four black cops had beaten King? Or, would it have been better if a white guy had been beaten instead? Since any change in the race of those involved would still make the beating outrageous and excessive, it is pointless to let the issue muddy the water.
Baton Proficiency
Before the shift began on the night of March 3, Powell was given “special attention” at roll call because he had trouble using the PR24 baton properly during training sessions. He wasn’t hitting the target hard enough. Wind was noted for his efficiency with the weapon. This information could have no relation to the beating that night. Yet I find myself wondering if Powell was feeling pressured to show he could “do it right” while his sergeant looked on. Would he have been as active in the beating, or as brutal? No one questioned Powell on his motivations.
Assumptions and Decisions
King was a construction worker, six foot three and buffed out. Koon assumed King’s physique was the result of time in prison devoted to working out. Koon claims that King demonstrated behaviors like someone under the influence of PCP. When “dusted”, people seem to feel no pain, speak unintelligibly and become incredibly strong. Officers could not understand King when he spoke. He would not comply to their commands, especially the command to lie face down on the ground with arms and legs spread apart. The Emergency Room report and Sgt. Koon’s daily report, both completed the day of the beating, stated suspected PCP ingestion. However, PCP was not checked as a condition on either Use of Force reports filed with the LAPD connected with the booking of King. The reports were not completed after the Internal Affairs Division began its investigation. The Use of Force reports checked the “other” box and listed possibly under the influence of an unknown drug.
King stopped in an area that was well known to police as a dumping ground for bodies of drug deals gone bad. Koon claims that his thirteen years as a patrol cop had taught him some things about dangerous people that are difficult to explain to the rest of us. One of these things is the Folsom roll. It is a technique learned in prison yards that enables someone in the prone position to disarm an officer. Koon explained that when King rolled toward the officers beating him, that he was engaging in this maneuver. To the untrained eye King only appeared to be rolling on the ground in reaction to the beating.
The assumption of prison time, PCP usage and motivation for the location of the traffic stop put the officers on edge. Actions seen by civilian bystanders and viewers of the tape that seemed reasonable for someone who was being beaten were cause for the escalation of force in the minds of the officers. The officers were making decisions based on their experience with dangerous people and their training as police officers. They used the tools of their trade, TASERs, batons, guns and a lot of yelling. Nothing was effective on King that night, according to Koon.
Witnesses
The investigation of the beating by Tom Owens was professional and thorough. It was his job to check everything out before the civil trial so King’s lawyers weren’t surprised by details that could hurt their case. Owen had been an LAPD patrol officer for 12 years before beginning his investigative business. He still had contacts in the department and an intimate understanding of how things worked.
One of the most puzzling discrepancies I encountered when reading about his investigation concerned the car seen passing between the camera and the beating. Owens was able to identify the car because of a distinctive sticker on the door post. The dark grey Probe was driven by Martin Leon. He was driving home from a family birthday party in San Bernardino. His brother Hector was in the passenger seat and Martin’s wife and two children were in the back seat. The adults in the car gave Owens statements claiming King was attacked by the officers. They identified Brisneo as shouting “nigger” and “black” at King.
When meeting with the District Attorney about the civil case, Owens asked if they had interviewed the occupants of the car in the video. They said that they had taken the statement of “the guy” who had been driving the car. ”Not much there”, said Alan Yochelson. “He said King got out of his car and refused all orders to get down on the ground. When the officers finally approached, King went after a couple of them and knocked them down.” When Owens asked him about the other passengers in the car, Yochelson said there was only the driver. The DA had gotten the drivers name from the defense in the criminal case as part of discovery, and the name was never revealed to King’s attorney.
The conflicting account of King’s reaction to the beating was disturbing. Koon said King displayed extraordinary strength by throwing off four officers. Then King was TASED twice, each time absorbing 50,000 volts of electricity. His only reaction was a loud groan each time, and the repeated effort to rise to his feet. Then the beating began. When King continued to move around after being subjected to blow after blow, Koon was convinced that King was unaffected by pain. Koon assumed the lack of pain was related to PCP usage by King. Koon makes no mention of King screaming during the beating.
“I heard the driver (King) scream”, said Highway Patrol officer Melanie Singer during her testimony at the criminal trial. Officer Wind, in his statement to Internal Affairs, said that he heard King shouting incoherently from the pain of the TASER. A passenger in the grey Probe that drove within a few feet of the beating, Hector Leon, said that King was clearly in pain while being struck by the officers. When interviewed by Owens, Hector said he heard King screaming from the pain.
Let he who is without sin
After the beating, the criminal history of King was exposed in the press. Fear of it being entered as evidence kept King from testifying at the criminal trial. But not much was mentioned about the skeletons in the closet of the officers. Brisneo, like King, had a history of domestic abuse and drinking. The abuse was the reason for Brisneo’s failed marriage to his first wife Cindy.
In 1987 Officer Brisneo was put on a sixty-six day suspension without pay for beating and kicking a handcuffed arrestee. The average suspension is ten to twenty-two days. In 1989, Officer Powell used excessive force that resulted in a broken arm and a $70,000 settlement paid by the city of Los Angeles. This was only one of many complaints filed against Officer Powell. Only Brisneo’s suspension was made public during the trial. Neither was used as evidence against the officers in trial.
Koon makes a good case for his claim that he and his fellow officers were presumed guilty. They were hung out to dry by Police Chief Daryl Gates, Mayor Tom Bradley and even President George H.W. Bush. The videotape was damning evidence against them. But didn’t the officers presume the guilt of King? King’s evasion of arrest, physical build, and refusal to comply were suspicious. Anyone who has ever seen COPS could tell you that. The presumption of guilt on both sides resulted in all being treated unjustly.
Was justice served?
My journey through the statements and evidence has made some aspects of King’s beating clear. But I am bewildered by the discrepancies. If all of this evidence was before me as a juror, I would have reasonable doubt concerning the guilt of the officers. The jurors in each trial were given even less. Decisions made by lawyers on both sides of the case are puzzling. The criminal trail’s prosecutors seemed to just be along for the show. Their failure to let King tell his version of events gave a considerable advantage to the defense. Whenever King had his say in court, decisions were made in his favor. Civilian witnesses gave statements that conflicted with the testimony of the officers. But they were never called to testify in court.
Beginning March third, the media presence combined with posturing from politicians to produce intense public reaction to the case. Some would argue that their influence made it possible for justice to be done. Some would argue the opposite. After my experience preparing this article, I am unsure that justice is blind when there is a camera watching.
First, I read Koon’s account in his book Presumed Guilty – The Tragedy of the Rodney King Affair. Koon was the highest ranking officer present when King was beaten. Koon was directly involved in the case and within feet of the beating. I thought I had an accurate picture of what happened. Then, I read Lying Eyes – The Truth Behind the Corruption and Brutality of the LAPD and the Beating of Rodney King by Tom Owens. Owens was hired by Rodney King’s attorney to conduct an independent investigation of the beating in preparation for King’s civil lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles. I was puzzled by the substantially different accounts of events. I was shocked at the sloppy investigative procedures followed by the LAPD Internal Affairs Division, and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. Now, I wish that I could understand the decisions and motivations of the LAPD, Internal Affairs, and the legal teams that represented the accused officers.
The videotaped beating of Rodney King
Shortly after midnight in the foothills of Los Angeles, Officer Lawrence Powell hit Rodney King. His metal baton struck King in the arms, right clavicle, shoulder and chest. King landed face first on the asphalt. Officers struck him up to a dozen times before stepping back to evaluate their use of force. Would King lie down on his stomach with his arms and legs spread out as instructed? No, not yet. In a twelve second flurry, King took fourteen blows: three in the upper torso, two in the back, two in the shoulder, one in the buttocks and six in the arm. The last blow to the arm from Officer Timothy Wind sent King face first into the asphalt. Yet King cocks his left knee and rises once again.
Officers Wind and Powell continue to hit King. In thirty-four seconds they deliver one blow to the knee, one to the hand, two to the buttocks, two to the ankle, two to the thigh, three to the leg, one to the shoulder and five to the back before Officer Brisneo sends King falling face first into the asphalt with a kick to the back between his shoulder blades. In less than a second King begins swinging his left arm toward Brisneo. Powell and Wind respond with blows to the right arm. King continues to rise to his hands and knees and turns toward Powell.
In the final twelve seconds, King is hit in the arm three times, in the buttocks once, and in the back four times. He is kicked in the rear shoulder area three times by Officer Wind. Finally, King puts his hands on his head. Powell hands his handcuffs to Brisneo. But, within ten seconds, King removes his left hand and renews the struggle with the police. The struggle ends when multiple officers use foot pressure to stop King’s resistance.
The video record of the beating of Rodney King lasted eighty-two seconds. The beating was brutal and seemingly unjustified. All over the world people of every race and position called for punishment of the officers involved. Old wounds were reopened, old prejudices rekindled. All because of what was on the tape. The videotape was only a small piece of a larger puzzle. Most don’t know that the edited version they saw only showed the end of the exchange between King and police. The unedited tape shot by George Holliday was twelve minutes long.
High Speed Chase
Officer Melanie Singer was patrolling the Foothill Freeway west of Burbank in her California Highway Patrol cruiser shortly before midnight. Her partner was her husband Officer Tim Singer. She noticed a car quickly approaching in her rearview mirror. In order to assess the speed of the car, she exited at Sunland Boulevard. She re-entered the freeway behind the speeding car. She quickly accelerated and arrived at her vehicle’s top speed of 115 mph. The vehicle was still pulling away from her. She turned on the cruiser’s lights and siren and continued the pursuit. She called for Highway Patrol assistance, but the nearest unit was 20 miles away. The Singers then radioed for assistance from the Los Angeles Police Department.
LAPD’s Foothill Division was a couple of miles away from the chase. Sergeant Stacey Koon listened to the pursuit as he prepared to begin his patrol for the night. Two LAPD police units responded to the Singer’s call and a police helicopter was dispatched to follow the action. Koon got into his squad car and paralleled the chase based on radio reports. The speeding vehicle exited the freeway at Paxton Street. The driver ran the stop sign at the freeway exit ramp. He then made a left turn at the blind curve going 35mph, ignoring the Highway Patrol unit with lights and siren blaring. Now the driver was in an area patrolled by the LAPD, and speeding toward the Foothill Division Station. Two officers from the Los Angeles Unified School District Police had observed the chase and joined in the pursuit. The driver suddenly came to a stop at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Osborne.
Procedurally, this became more than a routine speeding violation while still on the Foothill Freeway. King’s actions made felony stop procedures necessary. No officer would be slowly strolling up to King’s car to ask him if he knew how fast he was going. Highway Patrol officers were in charge of this arrest and proceeded with caution. The sound of the helicopter rotors and the siren from the school police car made communication difficult. Tim Singer commanded the driver of the car to get onto the ground in felony prone position. King didn’t move. Singer repeated his command to the passengers, Freddy Helms and Bryant Allen. They quickly complied and were handcuffed without incident, according to Koon. However, according to Allen, he heard King scream and he looked to see what was happening. Allen was told not to look, hit in the head and pushed to the ground. While handcuffed and on the ground, Allen claimed he was stomped on the back and kicked in the lower neck.
Racism in the LAPD
Koon claims that the race of the suspect was not known until the chase neared its conclusion. This makes accusations of racial profiling unlikely in the King case. Does that mean that racism was not a factor in the minds of any officer or that there is no racism in the LAPD? Of course not. Police forces are made up of human beings that reflect many beliefs, including racist beliefs. Incidents of racial remarks and inappropriate racial references were made public during the trials and investigations. While embarrassing, racist remarks are not confined to the LAPD or police officers.
Personally, I do not see why racism is relevant in the King beating. Would the beating have been more acceptable if four black cops had beaten King? Or, would it have been better if a white guy had been beaten instead? Since any change in the race of those involved would still make the beating outrageous and excessive, it is pointless to let the issue muddy the water.
Baton Proficiency
Before the shift began on the night of March 3, Powell was given “special attention” at roll call because he had trouble using the PR24 baton properly during training sessions. He wasn’t hitting the target hard enough. Wind was noted for his efficiency with the weapon. This information could have no relation to the beating that night. Yet I find myself wondering if Powell was feeling pressured to show he could “do it right” while his sergeant looked on. Would he have been as active in the beating, or as brutal? No one questioned Powell on his motivations.
Assumptions and Decisions
King was a construction worker, six foot three and buffed out. Koon assumed King’s physique was the result of time in prison devoted to working out. Koon claims that King demonstrated behaviors like someone under the influence of PCP. When “dusted”, people seem to feel no pain, speak unintelligibly and become incredibly strong. Officers could not understand King when he spoke. He would not comply to their commands, especially the command to lie face down on the ground with arms and legs spread apart. The Emergency Room report and Sgt. Koon’s daily report, both completed the day of the beating, stated suspected PCP ingestion. However, PCP was not checked as a condition on either Use of Force reports filed with the LAPD connected with the booking of King. The reports were not completed after the Internal Affairs Division began its investigation. The Use of Force reports checked the “other” box and listed possibly under the influence of an unknown drug.
King stopped in an area that was well known to police as a dumping ground for bodies of drug deals gone bad. Koon claims that his thirteen years as a patrol cop had taught him some things about dangerous people that are difficult to explain to the rest of us. One of these things is the Folsom roll. It is a technique learned in prison yards that enables someone in the prone position to disarm an officer. Koon explained that when King rolled toward the officers beating him, that he was engaging in this maneuver. To the untrained eye King only appeared to be rolling on the ground in reaction to the beating.
The assumption of prison time, PCP usage and motivation for the location of the traffic stop put the officers on edge. Actions seen by civilian bystanders and viewers of the tape that seemed reasonable for someone who was being beaten were cause for the escalation of force in the minds of the officers. The officers were making decisions based on their experience with dangerous people and their training as police officers. They used the tools of their trade, TASERs, batons, guns and a lot of yelling. Nothing was effective on King that night, according to Koon.
Witnesses
The investigation of the beating by Tom Owens was professional and thorough. It was his job to check everything out before the civil trial so King’s lawyers weren’t surprised by details that could hurt their case. Owen had been an LAPD patrol officer for 12 years before beginning his investigative business. He still had contacts in the department and an intimate understanding of how things worked.
One of the most puzzling discrepancies I encountered when reading about his investigation concerned the car seen passing between the camera and the beating. Owens was able to identify the car because of a distinctive sticker on the door post. The dark grey Probe was driven by Martin Leon. He was driving home from a family birthday party in San Bernardino. His brother Hector was in the passenger seat and Martin’s wife and two children were in the back seat. The adults in the car gave Owens statements claiming King was attacked by the officers. They identified Brisneo as shouting “nigger” and “black” at King.
When meeting with the District Attorney about the civil case, Owens asked if they had interviewed the occupants of the car in the video. They said that they had taken the statement of “the guy” who had been driving the car. ”Not much there”, said Alan Yochelson. “He said King got out of his car and refused all orders to get down on the ground. When the officers finally approached, King went after a couple of them and knocked them down.” When Owens asked him about the other passengers in the car, Yochelson said there was only the driver. The DA had gotten the drivers name from the defense in the criminal case as part of discovery, and the name was never revealed to King’s attorney.
The conflicting account of King’s reaction to the beating was disturbing. Koon said King displayed extraordinary strength by throwing off four officers. Then King was TASED twice, each time absorbing 50,000 volts of electricity. His only reaction was a loud groan each time, and the repeated effort to rise to his feet. Then the beating began. When King continued to move around after being subjected to blow after blow, Koon was convinced that King was unaffected by pain. Koon assumed the lack of pain was related to PCP usage by King. Koon makes no mention of King screaming during the beating.
“I heard the driver (King) scream”, said Highway Patrol officer Melanie Singer during her testimony at the criminal trial. Officer Wind, in his statement to Internal Affairs, said that he heard King shouting incoherently from the pain of the TASER. A passenger in the grey Probe that drove within a few feet of the beating, Hector Leon, said that King was clearly in pain while being struck by the officers. When interviewed by Owens, Hector said he heard King screaming from the pain.
Let he who is without sin
After the beating, the criminal history of King was exposed in the press. Fear of it being entered as evidence kept King from testifying at the criminal trial. But not much was mentioned about the skeletons in the closet of the officers. Brisneo, like King, had a history of domestic abuse and drinking. The abuse was the reason for Brisneo’s failed marriage to his first wife Cindy.
In 1987 Officer Brisneo was put on a sixty-six day suspension without pay for beating and kicking a handcuffed arrestee. The average suspension is ten to twenty-two days. In 1989, Officer Powell used excessive force that resulted in a broken arm and a $70,000 settlement paid by the city of Los Angeles. This was only one of many complaints filed against Officer Powell. Only Brisneo’s suspension was made public during the trial. Neither was used as evidence against the officers in trial.
Koon makes a good case for his claim that he and his fellow officers were presumed guilty. They were hung out to dry by Police Chief Daryl Gates, Mayor Tom Bradley and even President George H.W. Bush. The videotape was damning evidence against them. But didn’t the officers presume the guilt of King? King’s evasion of arrest, physical build, and refusal to comply were suspicious. Anyone who has ever seen COPS could tell you that. The presumption of guilt on both sides resulted in all being treated unjustly.
Was justice served?
My journey through the statements and evidence has made some aspects of King’s beating clear. But I am bewildered by the discrepancies. If all of this evidence was before me as a juror, I would have reasonable doubt concerning the guilt of the officers. The jurors in each trial were given even less. Decisions made by lawyers on both sides of the case are puzzling. The criminal trail’s prosecutors seemed to just be along for the show. Their failure to let King tell his version of events gave a considerable advantage to the defense. Whenever King had his say in court, decisions were made in his favor. Civilian witnesses gave statements that conflicted with the testimony of the officers. But they were never called to testify in court.
Beginning March third, the media presence combined with posturing from politicians to produce intense public reaction to the case. Some would argue that their influence made it possible for justice to be done. Some would argue the opposite. After my experience preparing this article, I am unsure that justice is blind when there is a camera watching.
Undecided
I am an undecided voter in this year’s primary. And I hate it!
Like me, many Americans are frustrated. We feel government needs to alter its course, but don’t necessarily know what to change or who is best qualified to do it. Every candidate knows this and whips our discontent into a frenzy, offering themselves as the one to usher in this “change.”
After claiming to be this savior, candidates avoid questions that ask for details. Speeches demanding change in Washington don’t take any courage in the face of a recession, a war, and a housing crisis. Comparing all their vague generalizations is like trying to choose between six different flavors of vanilla ice cream.
If candidates are selling change for the sake of change, I am not buying. Change does not come without a cost. Candidates need to be more specific. Outline the alterations you plan to make. Fully disclose all costs. Don’t insult our intelligence by implying the money is hidden somewhere in the budget. History has taught us that we will sacrifice our money through taxes and inflation or sacrifice our liberty.
I haven’t found a leader worth following. Every candidate wants to rule America. None have the courage to lead America. Romney’s flip-flopping and Clinton’s poll-of-the-day pandering is irritating. People want their leader to stand firm.
A leader, like a parent, needs to establish and enforce boundaries. A good leader leads patiently. Additionally, a good leader counsels those he leads when they desire to make an unwise choice. These changes are innovations I would love to see in America’s next president.
Unfortunately, no candidate has the courage to tell the American people when their desires are unwise. It might interfere with their re-election. I doubt these lawyer-candidates can explain why our desires are unwise in a way that we can all understand.
The political sleight-of-hand is especially confusing in this primary. Nothing is as it seems. We have Ron Paul, previously a Libertarian, running as a Republican. We have Huckabee running as a Republican yet sounding like a Democrat. We have McCain, previously an Independent, running as a Republican. Maybe this switch is the change the candidates are talking about.
I am not convinced that any of these candidates will keep their promises. Obama, McCain and Clinton are senators, and Ron Paul is a sitting congressman. They were elected to represent their state’s interests in Washington. While campaigning, all they are supporting and defending are their own reputations.
Citizens of Arizona, Illinois, and New York are paying a candidate $169,300 to take a year off the job while reducing their representation by 50 percent. Citizens of Lake Jackson, Texas are without representation in the House while Ron Paul is setting campaign fund-raising records on the people’s dime. While candidates are campaigning they are not sitting on their committees. They are not listening to deliberations. They are not voting on any resolutions. They are not doing their job.
A candidate running for higher office while serving in another government position is not illegal. Still, they have no ethical problem cashing their paycheck without doing their job – a job that cannot be delegated to others. It is naïve to assume that a pay raise and an oval office will magically change their attitude.
Let’s not forget the press. They don’t make my decision any easier. It amazes me that with six candidates the press produces so little helpful information for voters.
In the past they harped about the cost of John Edward’s haircut and how Dan Quayle spelled potato. How shallow! It is like being back in 6th grade.
This primary season all the voters have gotten from the press are stories about Obama’s race, Romney and Obama’s religion, McCain’s age and Clinton’s gender. Race and gender are obvious to anyone with eyes. All are issues that perspective employers are forbidden by law to ask in the employment process. How ironic.
Many people are undecided in this primary election because they are too confused or uninformed. Most Americans don’t have the time or resources to sort through political hype for the truth. What corrections will help us make intelligent, informed decisions as voters?
The press needs to change their focus. Major networks should let the tabloids handle reporting about the shallow and petty. Otherwise, it appears that both have the same goal: selling papers regardless of truth content. The press has regular access to candidates. They should ask probing questions that push thorough the patronizing generalizations given by candidates. Citizens need information that intelligently compares specifics on the issues.
Candidates need to change their approach to campaigning. They should be more specific and substantial in their speeches. They should be courageous and show leadership by being examples of ethics and integrity.
Both candidates and the press need to change their tactics and prioritize discussion of non-polarizing issues. Then, Americans could begin to find common ground and become more united. That transition would be the best change of all.
Like me, many Americans are frustrated. We feel government needs to alter its course, but don’t necessarily know what to change or who is best qualified to do it. Every candidate knows this and whips our discontent into a frenzy, offering themselves as the one to usher in this “change.”
After claiming to be this savior, candidates avoid questions that ask for details. Speeches demanding change in Washington don’t take any courage in the face of a recession, a war, and a housing crisis. Comparing all their vague generalizations is like trying to choose between six different flavors of vanilla ice cream.
If candidates are selling change for the sake of change, I am not buying. Change does not come without a cost. Candidates need to be more specific. Outline the alterations you plan to make. Fully disclose all costs. Don’t insult our intelligence by implying the money is hidden somewhere in the budget. History has taught us that we will sacrifice our money through taxes and inflation or sacrifice our liberty.
I haven’t found a leader worth following. Every candidate wants to rule America. None have the courage to lead America. Romney’s flip-flopping and Clinton’s poll-of-the-day pandering is irritating. People want their leader to stand firm.
A leader, like a parent, needs to establish and enforce boundaries. A good leader leads patiently. Additionally, a good leader counsels those he leads when they desire to make an unwise choice. These changes are innovations I would love to see in America’s next president.
Unfortunately, no candidate has the courage to tell the American people when their desires are unwise. It might interfere with their re-election. I doubt these lawyer-candidates can explain why our desires are unwise in a way that we can all understand.
The political sleight-of-hand is especially confusing in this primary. Nothing is as it seems. We have Ron Paul, previously a Libertarian, running as a Republican. We have Huckabee running as a Republican yet sounding like a Democrat. We have McCain, previously an Independent, running as a Republican. Maybe this switch is the change the candidates are talking about.
I am not convinced that any of these candidates will keep their promises. Obama, McCain and Clinton are senators, and Ron Paul is a sitting congressman. They were elected to represent their state’s interests in Washington. While campaigning, all they are supporting and defending are their own reputations.
Citizens of Arizona, Illinois, and New York are paying a candidate $169,300 to take a year off the job while reducing their representation by 50 percent. Citizens of Lake Jackson, Texas are without representation in the House while Ron Paul is setting campaign fund-raising records on the people’s dime. While candidates are campaigning they are not sitting on their committees. They are not listening to deliberations. They are not voting on any resolutions. They are not doing their job.
A candidate running for higher office while serving in another government position is not illegal. Still, they have no ethical problem cashing their paycheck without doing their job – a job that cannot be delegated to others. It is naïve to assume that a pay raise and an oval office will magically change their attitude.
Let’s not forget the press. They don’t make my decision any easier. It amazes me that with six candidates the press produces so little helpful information for voters.
In the past they harped about the cost of John Edward’s haircut and how Dan Quayle spelled potato. How shallow! It is like being back in 6th grade.
This primary season all the voters have gotten from the press are stories about Obama’s race, Romney and Obama’s religion, McCain’s age and Clinton’s gender. Race and gender are obvious to anyone with eyes. All are issues that perspective employers are forbidden by law to ask in the employment process. How ironic.
Many people are undecided in this primary election because they are too confused or uninformed. Most Americans don’t have the time or resources to sort through political hype for the truth. What corrections will help us make intelligent, informed decisions as voters?
The press needs to change their focus. Major networks should let the tabloids handle reporting about the shallow and petty. Otherwise, it appears that both have the same goal: selling papers regardless of truth content. The press has regular access to candidates. They should ask probing questions that push thorough the patronizing generalizations given by candidates. Citizens need information that intelligently compares specifics on the issues.
Candidates need to change their approach to campaigning. They should be more specific and substantial in their speeches. They should be courageous and show leadership by being examples of ethics and integrity.
Both candidates and the press need to change their tactics and prioritize discussion of non-polarizing issues. Then, Americans could begin to find common ground and become more united. That transition would be the best change of all.
Was Fascism Just a Fad?
Following the end of World War I, many new ideas emerged about how best to manage a society without a monarchy, such as socialism, communism, and fascism. The communist experiment was unfolding in Russia, and socialism was all the rage among the intellectuals in Europe, but Germany tried democracy on for size. They tailored their democracy in ways they thought it would fit them best, but it soon became clear that there were problems. Germany’s authoritarian history, strong anti-democratic influences, and weak political institutions were factors that contributed to the rise of fascism.
Germany had a political culture that leaned fundamentally toward authoritarian regimes that saw the military as a means to improve their position among the nations of the world, yet they pioneered progressive practices like formalized bureaucracy, federalism and elected offices during the first and second empires. Germany’s democratic constitution under the Weimar Republic allowed for adult male and female voting, a parliament, and proportional representation, which demonstrates their attempt to break free of their compulsion toward authoritarianism. But just like the Israelites after they were liberated from their masters in Egypt, there were powerful groups that resisted change and desired a return to the familiar. This tendency toward authoritarianism was necessary for the emergence of fascism, but it alone was not sufficient cause.
Within the Weimar Republic powerful groups retained their influence because reactionary army and police officers from the previous Reich had not been purged. The new regime needed the police force and army in order to suppress demonstrations, to quiet the threat of a communist revolution, to prevent a revolution like they had seen unfold in Russia, and to restore order. Judges and civil servants were trained in and firmly entrenched in anti-democratic practices. Two powerful groups, the Junkers (anti-democratic elite landowners) and Army Officers, were represented in the Republic’s second president Otto von Hindenburg. Hindenburg was the person responsible for appointing Hitler as chancellor in 1933. He received the authority to appoint the chancellor through the constitution, but Hitler became his choice because the weaknesses of Germany’s political institutions made Hitler’s emergence possible.
Durverger’s Law states: the more proportional the system, the greater number of political parties. Germany’s proportional representation yielded three larger parties - the Social Democratic Party (usually received @25% of the vote), the Center Party (usually received @15%), and the Communist Party (usually received 15%) - and many smaller parties leaning toward the center-right of the political spectrum (45% of the vote). The extreme left and right wing parties were committed to the destruction of the republic either by communism or a return to a familiar authoritarian regime. At the same time, the smaller parties failed to form a strong urban-rural coalition, which collapsed the center-right and right-wing parties. These small party voters began to support the Nazi party, who were seen as a tool in the struggle against communism. The Nazis began attracting a substantial portion of the vote in 1930, and with this influx of small party voters their ranks swelled, resulting in a plurality of 33% the vote in the 1933 election. Hitler, being the leader of the strongest parliamentary party, was appointed chancellor, asked to form a cabinet, and asked to lead the government. The number of parties coupled with the weakness of their coalitions made the emergence of a small party possible.
Since the end of World War II, the countries of the world have been pondering about the factors that led to the rise of fascism in Germany. One factor alone is not responsible, but the alignment of many factors. Germany tried democracy, but the combination of democratic ideas they chose, together with the fear of communist revolution and a compulsion to revert to their authoritarian tendencies paved the way for fascism. Seventeen years into their second attempt at democracy, contemporary unified Germany is thriving with a strong economy and running on democratic principles. Many in the world hope that Germany has learned from its mistakes and has found democracy to be a fad which has become their favorite style.
Germany had a political culture that leaned fundamentally toward authoritarian regimes that saw the military as a means to improve their position among the nations of the world, yet they pioneered progressive practices like formalized bureaucracy, federalism and elected offices during the first and second empires. Germany’s democratic constitution under the Weimar Republic allowed for adult male and female voting, a parliament, and proportional representation, which demonstrates their attempt to break free of their compulsion toward authoritarianism. But just like the Israelites after they were liberated from their masters in Egypt, there were powerful groups that resisted change and desired a return to the familiar. This tendency toward authoritarianism was necessary for the emergence of fascism, but it alone was not sufficient cause.
Within the Weimar Republic powerful groups retained their influence because reactionary army and police officers from the previous Reich had not been purged. The new regime needed the police force and army in order to suppress demonstrations, to quiet the threat of a communist revolution, to prevent a revolution like they had seen unfold in Russia, and to restore order. Judges and civil servants were trained in and firmly entrenched in anti-democratic practices. Two powerful groups, the Junkers (anti-democratic elite landowners) and Army Officers, were represented in the Republic’s second president Otto von Hindenburg. Hindenburg was the person responsible for appointing Hitler as chancellor in 1933. He received the authority to appoint the chancellor through the constitution, but Hitler became his choice because the weaknesses of Germany’s political institutions made Hitler’s emergence possible.
Durverger’s Law states: the more proportional the system, the greater number of political parties. Germany’s proportional representation yielded three larger parties - the Social Democratic Party (usually received @25% of the vote), the Center Party (usually received @15%), and the Communist Party (usually received 15%) - and many smaller parties leaning toward the center-right of the political spectrum (45% of the vote). The extreme left and right wing parties were committed to the destruction of the republic either by communism or a return to a familiar authoritarian regime. At the same time, the smaller parties failed to form a strong urban-rural coalition, which collapsed the center-right and right-wing parties. These small party voters began to support the Nazi party, who were seen as a tool in the struggle against communism. The Nazis began attracting a substantial portion of the vote in 1930, and with this influx of small party voters their ranks swelled, resulting in a plurality of 33% the vote in the 1933 election. Hitler, being the leader of the strongest parliamentary party, was appointed chancellor, asked to form a cabinet, and asked to lead the government. The number of parties coupled with the weakness of their coalitions made the emergence of a small party possible.
Since the end of World War II, the countries of the world have been pondering about the factors that led to the rise of fascism in Germany. One factor alone is not responsible, but the alignment of many factors. Germany tried democracy, but the combination of democratic ideas they chose, together with the fear of communist revolution and a compulsion to revert to their authoritarian tendencies paved the way for fascism. Seventeen years into their second attempt at democracy, contemporary unified Germany is thriving with a strong economy and running on democratic principles. Many in the world hope that Germany has learned from its mistakes and has found democracy to be a fad which has become their favorite style.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
