October 21, 2021

By Jeanine Molloff

Senator Kyrsten Sinema unwittingly shares a nickname with—Marie Antoinette. Both women have been known as Madame Veto. Both women have enjoyed the gifts of the wealthy, and both women have treated the ‘great unwashed masses’ with the same callous indifference the average pedestrian attributes to--dog dirt.

   Marie Antoinette represents the bloody past, as Sinema does the economic warfare of the bloody present. Marie Antoinette paid the ultimate political price, while Sinema becomes more powerful. Now, no one on the political Left wants to re-introduce the guillotine to the political arena, (though the GOP of Trump did erect a guillotine on January 6th). Those of us on the political Left are merely demanding transparency and accountability from public office holders. We are demanding representation equal to the representation enjoyed by the 1%.

   Unfortunately, Sinema never received the memo, so constituents from the immigration group LUCHA, had to sniff her out and follow her into the bathroom on the Arizona State University campus where she is teaching a course on fund raising. That story has reached epidemic proportions, with the mainstream media elevating these activists to the level of Timothy McVeigh or alleged 911 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and all because her actual constituents dared to confront a U.S. Senator in the restroom. Sinema’s reaction to this non-violent though eccentric confrontation is predictably hypocritical. She castigated the LUCHA activists and made the specious claim that their protest was—illegitimate.

   Senator Kyrsten Sinema is not only wrong on her allegations, but she remains a dangerous hypocrite. Put bluntly, she poses an existential threat both to the 1st Amendment as we now understand it—and any ‘bathroom protests.’ These activists were desperate to present their case for supporting President Biden’s ‘Build Back Better’ bill which is currently in the reconciliation process.  The reconciliation bill which sustains the Biden agenda, contains provisions for rebuilding traditional infrastructure such as roads and bridges, but it also includes money for childcare, Medicare expansion, and a possible pathway to citizenship for dreamers.

   Sinema has single-handedly held the entire agenda hostage to the demands of her GOP masters. As the nation continues to suffer the lingering effects of Trumpism, (including the incompetent handling of the COVID pandemic by Trump); Sinema is throwing a demure tantrum because the peasants dare to question her actions.  Sinema maintains this power base because she defends the filibuster like a crack addict does their next fix.  She places nearly theocratic authority on the undemocratic and unconstitutional filibuster—yet would denounce the 1st Amendment rights of these students to wound her vanity and be ‘inappropriate. Essentially Sinema, (and her centrist allies) are using the old ‘civility’ bromide to silence any evidence of the open systemic corruption flooding our politics.

   Perhaps the senator requires silence in the facility so she can achieve full concentration, or perhaps she is merely potty shy. We may never know for sure, but one thing is certain, Sinema is not an ally of the 1st Amendment. In fact, she pontificated from the lofty heights of her ASU stall protected ‘thrown’—that any ‘bathroom’ protests or verbal confrontations do not constitute ‘legitimate’ protest.

The letter....and other complaints about ‘potty’ protests....

   Unfortunately, her colleagues in the Senate support Sinema as opposed to the 1st Amendment. She is pursuing ‘civility’ over actual democracy, while trashing the 1st Amendment. Her democratic colleagues have signed a letter sponsored by Senator Cory Booker.  Signatories include Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Mark Warner, Dick Durbin, Catherine Cortez-Mast, Chuck Schumer and of course, Joe Manchin.  Bernie Sanders refused to sign a letter accusing activists of chasing Kyrsten Cinema – Uber Turco News

Not Legitimate Protest....

   Aside from the sanctimonious tone of Sinema’s press release issued October 4th, there is one specific statement that is dangerous to democracy itself. Here is what Sinema had to say about the dangerous potty protest:

“Yesterday’s behavior was not legitimate protest. It is unacceptable for activist organizations to instruct their members to jeopardize themselves by engaging in unlawful activities such as gaining entry to closed university buildings, disrupting learning environments, and filming students in a restroom.” Sinema Statement Following Events at ASU on Sunday | Senator Kyrsten Sinema (senate.gov)

Notice the most dangerous sentence in Sinema’s statement. It’s this sentence:

 “Yesterday’s behavior was not legitimate protest.” Sinema Statement Following Events at ASU on Sunday | Senator Kyrsten Sinema (senate.gov)

   I wonder exactly what does constitute ‘legitimate’ protest in Sinema’s world? This question must be addressed. In fact, Sinema’s stance is not unique to the Arizona senator. The US Senate has become a batch of self-appointed aristocrats isolating themselves from their constituents. So, for those senators who forgot the lessons of Constitution 101, here is the text of the 1st Amendment:

 “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The United States Bill of Rights: First 10 Amendments to the Constitution | American Civil Liberties Union (aclu.org)

   Notice that last part about petitioning the government for a “redress of grievances.” Sinema has called out the protesters as illegitimate. In fact, she is not so subtly threatening them with criminal prosecution as she mentions these alleged unlawful activities.

   Now, it’s not like the protesters tore out the bathroom stall in the fashion of tik toks Devious Licks destruction. They didn’t even bang on the door, and the last time I checked, being marginally disruptive is not a criminal act. If it were, then Marjorie Taylor Greene would be serving 10 to 20 in the state penitentiary, right next to her buddy The Donald.

   Frankly, the issue at stake remains the nature of the 1st Amendment. Do we have a vigorous right to confront office holders or not? Furthermore, exactly who decides the parameters of constitutionally protected speech? Senators Sinema and Booker would reduce the 1st Amendment to the level of privilege—a privilege that can be granted or rescinded at will—as opposed to a right.

   The Potty Protesters were challenging unchecked power the only way they could. In fact, University of Essex Professor Peter Bloom put it best.

“What is a greater threat—uncivil demands for justice or the civil preservation of injustice?” Opinion | Uncivil Politics | Peter Bloom (commondreams.org) 

   So, while Senator Sinema attempts to delegitimize non-violent, disruptive protest, with assistance from Senators Booker, Warren, Durbin, Warren, Klobuchar, Schumer and Manchin; she ignores the central point. Protest IS an act of premeditated disruption. This nation was founded by people who disrupted the injustices imposed by the British crown. That IS the function of the 1st Amendment. Disruptive protest must occur when the normal channels of power have become so corrupted that elected representatives behave like royals. The senators who signed on to this letter chiding protesters are the ones who should be reprimanded. Cory Booker pushed the ‘US Senator as Aristocrat’ in the letter he sponsored calling out ‘inappropriate’ protesters. Below is the proposed text:

“Protests are one of the most powerful tools for a vibrant democracy. That is why the right to peacefully assemble and the right to exercise freedom of speech are enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and we are committed to fiercely protecting those rights.”

“Following someone into a bathroom and filming the encounter is plainly inappropriate and unacceptable, and it crosses a clear line. “

“What happened in that video was a violation of Senator Sinema’s privacy that has no place in our public discourse, and we resolutely condemn it.” Leaked emails show Bernie Sanders' refusal to condemn Kyrsten Sinema harassment - Axios

   As much fun as it has been taking cheap pot-shots at Kyrsten Sinema and her cronies in the Senate, the true danger to democracy has been ignored by pundits chasing the horserace aspect of elections, namely the criminalization of non-violent dissent.

   Instead of quoting Sinema or Cory Booker, I would defer to the writings of a once-hated radical—the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now, in recent decades we have witnessed an unfortunate Disneyfication of King’s legacy. Focus has centered on the “I Have a Dream” speech, while ignoring his ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail.’

   There is a reason why younger generations of black activists have shied away from Dr. King as it was celebrated in the mainstream press. King, his full teachings, and the consensus past animosity generated from both conservatives and white liberals of the time—has been—whitewashed from history. Dr. King has been reduced to the ‘good protester,’ the ‘appropriate’ dissenter. This is the Dr. King that Sinema apparently prefers, but what is Cory Booker’s excuse? So, let’s look at the radical Dr. King and his opinions on disruptive protest. 

Dr. King on the disruptive nature of dissent..

   There are many popular myths about Dr. King and the nature of non-violent protest, which essentially render the non-violent protest movement impotent.  These myths are filled with misinformation, which is a polite word for LIES.

   Jeanne Theoharis published an article on these myths in The Root titled: MLK Would Never Shut Down a Freeway, and 6 Other Myths About the Civil Rights Movement and Black Lives Matter.

 MLK Would Never Shut Down a Freeway, and 6 Other Myths About the Civil Rights Movement and Black Lives Matter (theroot.com)  (Jeanne Theoharis is a Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College of the City University of New York and author of the award-winning book The Rebellious Life of Mrs. Rosa Parks.) These myths strike at the heart of wholesale racist denial and historic revisionism especially regarding DISRUPTIVE protest.

Here they are in reverse order:

Myth #6: “The movement focused on the south.” This is a lie. Dr. King wrote of this in the shadow of the Watts uprising as California officials expressed surprise in the Saturday Review. To quote Dr. King:

“In my travels in the North,” King said, he had grown “increasingly disillusioned with the power structures there...[who] showered praise on the heroism of Southern Negroes. Yet when the issues were joined concerning local conditions only the language was polite; the rejection was firm and unequivocal.” MLK Would Never Shut Down a Freeway, and 6 Other Myths About the Civil Rights Movement and Black Lives Matter (theroot.com)

Myth #5: “The federal government was a key supporter.” This is a lie. King and his supporters were surveilled by the FBI for months leading up to the March on Washington DC, where the much vaunted “I Have a Dream” speech took place. The Pentagon had 19,000 troops on standby, and a collection of 5000 local police, suburban police, National Guardsmen and Army Rangers. They were provided riot control training in advance of the event and placed on duty that day.

Additionally, the Kennedy administration rigged the microphone to cut off if King’s remarks were deemed too inflammatory. After the March proved a major media success internationally, the FBI expanded their surveillance of Dr King with approval from the Kennedy administration. MLK Would Never Shut Down a Freeway, and 6 Other Myths About the Civil Rights Movement and Black Lives Matter (theroot.com)

Myth #4: “Most well-meaning Americans supported the civil rights movement.” This is a lie. According to a Gallop survey conducted in 1961 only 22% of Americans approved of the Freedom Riders. Some 57% believed that these disruptive protests including sit-ins at lunch counters and freedom buses were damaging any chance at meaningful integration in the South. In 1964, a poll conducted by the New York Times revealed that the civil rights campaigners had gone too far.  To quote the article:

…"While denying any deep-seated prejudice, a large number of those questioned used the same terms to express their feelings. They spoke of Negroes’ receiving ‘everything on a silver platter’ and of ‘reverse discrimination’ against whites.” Poll Shows Whites in City Resent Civil Rights Drive; Majority Queried in Times Survey Say Negro Movement Has Gone Too Far, but Few Intend to Change Votes - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Myth #3: “Respectable” activists like Rosa Parks were publicly appreciated.” This is a lie. Rosa Parks was media lynched as a troublemaker, and never given full credit as an organizer. She spoke frequently of the failure to spark a mass movement years before the boycott. To quote Parks:

“Such a good job of brainwashing was done on the Negro”...”that a militant Negro was almost a freak of nature to them, many times ridiculed by others of his own group.” MLK Would Never Shut Down a Freeway, and 6 Other Myths About the Civil Rights Movement and Black Lives Matter (theroot.com)

Parks struggled with feelings of isolation as a result of this media abuse. She wrote that she often felt “completely alone and desolate, as if I was descending in a black and bottomless chasm.” MLK Would Never Shut Down a Freeway, and 6 Other Myths About the Civil Rights Movement and Black Lives Matter (theroot.com)

Myth #2: “The movement’s righteousness was apparent.”  This is a lie. The white majority regarded Dr. King, Rosa Parks and others in the movement as extremists and traitors. This criticism was not the sole province of the racist South but was entrenched in the ranks of white moderates. Dr. King wrote in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail about the White moderate. To quote:

“I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens’ Counciler or the Klu Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice […] who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action.’” Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.] (upenn.edu)

   This criticism practically mirrors the opinions issued by Senators Sinema and Booker regarding the bathroom protesters. The infamous ‘letter’ sponsored by Booker, namely the “Joint Statement from Senate Democratic Leadership Team – U.S. Senator Cory Booker”, only exemplifies the danger of the political moderate. The fact that it came from a black senator such as Cory Booker merely reflects his shame.

Myth #1: “The civil rights movement wasn’t disruptive.” This is the most heinous lie of all.  The Montgomery Bus Boycott was one of the most disruptive boycotts in American history since the Boston Tea Party. Additionally, the multiple campaigns of mass civil disobedience were again, engineered to cause not only disruption, but cripple downtown businesses. The leaders of the movement knew that massive disruption was key to forcing some modicum of justice for communities of color. Groups including SCLC, the Congress of Racial Equality and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee understood the plain fact that ‘disruption’ of the status quo was the only way to obtain justice.

Conclusion:

   Calling the bathroom protesters actions ‘illegitimate protest’ could be viewed as the prelude to criminalizing constitutionally protected, non-violent dissent. This is the true danger. Such a thinly veiled threat to the 1st Amendment is to be expected from Senator Sinema, but there is no excuse for Senator Cory Booker. Senator Booker is a Rhodes Scholar and an alumna of the Yale Law School, so he possesses a deep understanding of the law. Furthermore, as a black man, he should be supporting dissent which challenges the unjust, as opposed to supporting a politics of ‘civility’ which serves as a bulwark protecting unjust policies. Protest is by its very nature, ‘disruptive.’ Dr. King celebrated the very politics of non-violent disruptive protest that Cory Booker has called ‘inappropriate and unacceptable.’

   We are living in dangerous times. The powerful demand a politics of extremism for the rich which allows them to pilfer with impunity, while demanding a politics of ‘civility’ for the poor. The fact that democratic leadership signed on to Cory Booker’s letter condemning the very ‘good trouble’ that the late Congressman John Lewis celebrated in his lifelong battle against racism, merely reflects their collective shame. The fact that Cory Booker sponsored this letter attacking Latino activists desperate to appeal to their AWOL senator, allegedly not for their message—but for their tone—is to HIS shame.

   As for Kyrsten Sinema, she has shown her true face, one of cruel indifference to the same great, unwashed masses that her namesake—the other Madame Veto, (aka Marie Antoinette), reviled, and the charade is over. My only advice to Kyrsten Sinema is to claim her ‘bathroom’ throne while she can—for that is the only throne she deserves. 

Jeanine Molloff is a veteran urban educator and journalist. She has published in Huffington Post, UK Progressive, Truthout, Eurasia Review, OpEdNews, and others. Sh is also the author of The Silent Culling.

Follow BuzzFlash on @twitter

Continue the conversation at the BuzzFlash Nation group on Facebook

No paywall or advertisements here! Keep BuzzFlash independent and free from the influence of corporate interests – make a donation now.