We all knew – didn’t we? – that progressives’ enthusiasm for civility in politics would last only until they got mad about something. Came the fracas in Wisconsin, and the “Republicans are nazis” rhetoric was back in full force, along with efforts to disrupt state government and physically intimidate legislators. The Left has never liked it when the other side wins elections; by definition, that’s “undemocratic”.
There’s no point, of course, is trying to shame the progs by repeating the platitudes that they mouthed after the attempted murder of Rep. Giffords. Those sentiments were meant to apply in only one direction. Nor should we try to suppress left-wing incivility if we could. As long as they do nothing more than yell, the best response is to buy earplugs and engage in idiot-spotting.
Today, however, James Taranto calls attention to something more ominous than the vociferous and incoherent exercise of free speech. Seven Wisconsin labor union leaders have sent letters to local businesses demanding that they “publicly oppose Governor Walker’s efforts to virtually eliminate collective bargaining for public employees in Wisconsin”, with a one week deadline for responses.
In the event that you do not respond to this request by that date, we will assume that you stand with Governor Walker and against the teachers, nurses, police officers, fire fighters, and other dedicated public employees who serve our communities.
In the event that you cannot support this effort to save collective bargaining, please be advised that the undersigned will publicly and formally boycott the goods and services provided by your company. However, if you join us, we will do everything in our power to publicly celebrate your partnership in the fight to preserve the right of public employees to be heard at the bargaining table.
Five of the signatories head police or firemen’s unions. Quite simply and nakedly, public servants whose duty is to protect everyone’s life, liberty and property are threatening retaliation against citizens who do not publicly endorse the unions’ political stands and promising “public celebration” of those who do. This tactic goes far beyond endorsing candidates for office or other legitimate political activity. It aims to coerce agreement. The overt sanction is “only” an economic boycott, but when the police and fire departments put people on a blacklist, more ominous inferences naturally arise. Can the boycotted and the celebrated really expect to receive impartial treatment? Will public safety resources be equitably allocated to both groups? Will customers who defy the boycott be protected against violence by its supporters? What about businesses that just want to stay out of the controversy? (One of those has already been struck by vandals.) Most fundamentally, by what right do policemen and firemen impose penalties on men and women who are breaking no laws, whose only offense is to disagree with union leaders about the merits of public policy?
If, God forbid, the Left’s dissatisfaction with the outcome of the democratic process degenerates into civil war, future historians will cite this incident as one of the first symptoms of the incipient conflict.
Comments