Dangerous Liberty

With the Fourth of July on deck, and the national “No Kings” protests occurring recently, it’s worth taking a moment, in partisan times, to remind ourselves that dissent is patriotic, and protest is a core American principle. You might well disagree with what’s being said, depending on which group is protesting, or who is in power to face the protests. But the act of civil protest is a healthy part of democracy, and in fact is essential to its survival.

And it’s hardly new. The Center for the Study of the American Constitution, a nonprofit, nonpartisan center based at the history department at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, points out that “protests — sometimes peaceful, sometimes violent — regularly occurred leading to the American Revolution in the 1760s and 1770s.” After independence was achieved, there was a period of calm that lasted until 1786, when economic pressures led to protests in many states. Political leaders, the center notes, felt “that in republican forms of government, protests should be peaceful and should be settled at the ballot box.”

But not every founding father agreed. Thomas Jefferson, in fact, sounded surprisingly radical for someone who was a true architect of the government that is typically the target of such protests. “He believed that all governments would become oppressive and that the people must stand up and protest against arbitrary actions,” the center says. “In essence, the people would serve as the canary in the mine shaft, alerting the people and the government when government was becoming oppressive.”

He said a lot more. In a letter to James Madison, he wrote “that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, & as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” The center notes: “Governments, he said, should be ‘mild in their punishments of rebellion’ because these protests were a ‘medicine necessary for the sound health of government.’ To Abigail Adams, Jefferson wrote that ‘the spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now & then.’”

It’s hard to ignore one of his more famous statements about the “tree of liberty” and the “blood of patriots,” because it’s been used too often as justification for violent protest. It would be nice to say that it’s a misread of Jefferson’s intentions, but the truth is that this founding father believed so strongly in “a little rebellion now & then” that he seemed to accept the violence as part of liberty’s natural state. He quoted a Latin phrase: “Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.” One translation: “I prefer dangerous liberty to a quiet servitude.”

Today, though, it’s notable that political protest falls inevitably along an axis based on political party. Which is where George Washington comes in: He was fervently nonpartisan, refused to adopt a political party, and discouraged the development of an American democracy organized by political party. “The spirit of party,” he said in his farewell address in 1796, “serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.”

Washington would point to 2025 America, if he could, to make his point: Party politics have been so divisive in the past decade or so that the country is beset by “ill-founded jealousies” and “the animosity of one part against another.” Whether it’s “No Kings” or the tea party protests more than a decade ago, the “rebellions” we have today are virtually all endorsed by Republicans or Democrats, and almost never by both.

Perhaps, though, even with the taint of this partisanship, the protests in the streets should be celebrated by all sides. Back to Jefferson, who seemed to be thinking of social media when he said: “The people can not be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.” This is the real prelude to the “tree of liberty” analogy that followed.

What he seemed to be saying: Not every protest is well-founded; not every protest is based on truths or facts. Yet taking to the streets to speak out against policies you disagree with is appropriate, and healthy, either way. We can decide, in modern times, that blood need not be shed for Jefferson’s “dangerous liberty” to be manifested: It’s enough that “a little rebellion” in the streets happens from time to time, and we shouldn’t fear it.