The dichotomy of dissent

Dr. Armin Mruck of Towson University observed that the stories of those who resisted Hitler during the Shoah remind us of the importance of being idealistic. “I don’t think there’s too many idealistic people in our environment. And it wasn’t just these students [White Rose], there were other resistance groups as well who thought it was worthwhile to put your life on the line. That’s not very popular these days.”

Dr. Mruck’s statement generated a fascinating and ongoing debate: What is the proper balance between idealism and realism when one is trying to right a wrong?

This is hardly a new debate. In the 1960s as global student protests raged against the war in Vietnam, Vincent Probst - son of Christoph Probst - and Christian Petry penned a fervent appeal to their generation not to make the same mistake the White Rose had made, that is, not to be so steeped in idealism that they could not effect real change. Some associated with the White Rose incorrectly perceived Probst and Petry’s words as a slam against the White Rose, instead of seeing it as a large, unanswered question.

But Probst and Petry were right, and their words should not have been construed as insulting. Change in the 1960s did not come about because people wrote leaflets. Change came about because hundreds of thousands of students and “grown-ups” were willing to march on Washington; because legislators passed laws ending legal racial discrimination; because brave men and women like Abraham Joshua Heschel marched in Selma, side by side with those whom our society marginalized. Change also came about - and this is harder to wrap one’s head around - because of nonviolent and violent protest.

In no way does this short post seek to legitimize violent protest. Rationally, we should adhere to the notion that an eye for an eye makes both of us blind, that burning buildings is both illegal and morally reprehensible. What do we gain from the murder of an innocent, simply to make a political statement?

Although our rational mind tells us this - and it is right - historically we must analyze the great shifts in world history and acknowledge that for better or for worse, violent protest often plays a pivotal role in bringing about lasting change. From the American and French revolutions, to the military force required to end Hitler’s regime, to the violence that accompanied the Arab Spring: We cannot escape the role of violence in informed dissent and civil disobedience.

Yet we also see that violence for the sake of violence cannot and does not change things for the better. The riots that followed in the wake of the April 1992 acquittals in the Rodney King case represented legitimate protest of an injustice. But those riots were only a gut-wrenching expression of anger, with no focus, no visible intent to change something. Nothing changed for the better. If anything, the lives of the very community that had suffered the greatest injustice was harmed by the destruction of property.

Back to the original question: What is the proper balance between idealism and realism when one is trying to right a wrong?

In a perfect world, change could and should come when thinkers and dreamers (idealists) see an injustice and join forces with doers (realists) to ‘right the ship’ through legal channels. Passing and enforcing laws that protect everyone in their society, overturning laws that marginalize citizens, opening doors to opportunity for all. But we live in an imperfect world, when too often power rests in the hands of those who wield power to protect self-interest, not to work on behalf of the good of the Whole.

The only thing that seems clear: Real change cannot be ushered in until idealists and dreamers join hands with realists and pragmatists. We need Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. We need Gandhi’s nonviolent protests and Indian politicians negotiating with the British. We need Abraham Lincoln’s clear-eyed eloquence defining the ideals of a united America and we need Abraham Lincoln’s focused determination to make it happen. We need FDR’s “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself” and FDR’s decisive action to prevent disaster. We need the beauty of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” and the messiness of LBJ’s political maneuvering.

We need the idealism of compassion and we need concrete action.

Most of all, we need wisdom and discernment, since the answer to the question regarding balance can be utterly inscrutable.

Talk about this:

• Have you ever felt like Abraham Heschel, when he stated that marching in Selma with Martin Luther King, Jr., “his feet were praying”?
• If you had been present during one of the last literary evenings (Leseabende) with the White Rose, when they debated whether it were morally and ethically permissible to assassinate Adolf Hitler, what would you have said?
• How does this inscrutable question apply to the current polarization in our country?
• What do you say to friends or acquaintances who use e.g. the American revolution to justify the January 6 insurrection?
• Do you know of examples in your neighborhood or hometown where idealism and realism have joined hands to change your community?