Authority of Protest

Gary Hart posts over at HuffPo a nice piece about the moral support of protesters, and the American Right's seemingly dual-standard of support of the democratic voice in protest:

In the late 1980s the most respected leaders in the world--Nelson Mandela, Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa (and earlier Martin Luther King)--all had one thing in common. They had spent time in jail. More important, they had spent time in jail for their beliefs, beliefs that threatened the power structures of their countries. It seems strange that many Americans idolize protesters in other countries and ridicule them at home.

Equally strange is the tendency of conservatives to revere the protesters of early times--Tom Paine, the Bostonians who painted themselves like Indians and threw tea in Boston harbor, even the abolitionist John Brown--and vilify those who protest today. Someone once said that conservatives are the worshipers of dead radicals.

Nevertheless, there is a rich history of protest in America, by laborers, by women, by war opponents, by environmentalists, by African Americans, and in almost every case the protests changed American ideas and policies for the better. Protesters make us think, that is those inclined to think.

So while the Right is more than happy to support an active, impassioned protest in the Ukraine or Georgia on the side of democracy, they seem incapable of digesting one at home when it does not agree with them. In fact, they often seem to despise it.

Hart ends with these sentiments echoing Armando's call at dKos for more strigent pressure on Democrats to stand up:

It is a great wonder that war opponents, including increasing numbers of Democratic "leaders," are so silent. Some of the most visible simply believe the invasion of Iraq, which they endorsed, has been mismanaged, that more troops (not fewer) are needed! Even today, they seem untroubled by the false statements and manipulated intelligence of the administration. The most difficult political statement in the English language is: I made a mistake.

Speaking only for myself, I will find it very difficult to support any Democratic "leader" who remains silent at this critical moment but who wants to be president in 2008. There are defining moments in political careers and in national life where true character is revealed, where moral authority is achieved, or forfeited. Recall Dante's well-known warning that a special place is reserved in hell for those who, in times of moral crisis, preserve their neutrality.

There are those who earn their moral authority the hard way, by going to jail or, like Cindy Sheehan, by sacricing a loved one. Such people do not merely earn an audience with the president.

Such people deserve an accounting.

Hart actually ties together two separate entities here which should be tied together. He reminds the left and potential Democratic candidates that they are just as liable as The Administration in this war. They authorized it and have not condemned it; they have been weak in the knees as well. So the accountability implicates us all. Which candidates will we choose to support?

[Of course, we need more like Hackett who strike forward with impact and criticism.]