When pragmatists discuss the relationship of protests (and the riots and lootings that frequently attend them), they ordinarily defend protesting on the grounds that it leads to change. Whether this defense is true or not is a matter for considerable discussion, but what I wish to question is whether it is appropriate for public discourse to be shaped in this manner, whether it works or not.

Part 4 (Read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 in this series.)

Introduction

Pragmatists understandably discuss any matter merely in terms of results; we can expect no more than that. The problem with pragmatism is not merely philosophical (it might “work” to give all prisoners mind-numbing drugs, for instance, but this would not be just), however, the problem is that it is frequently impractical. Much pragmatism addresses a matter shortsightedly, without consideration of long-term considerations, and later must adjust to the reality that its short-term benefits were not worthy of its long-term costs. The 18^th Amendment, for example, probably had the short-term benefit of reducing rates of alcoholism; it had the long-term consequence of people learning to circumvent it and the Mafia becoming established, so it was repealed by the 21^st Amendment.

When pragmatists discuss the relationship of protests (and the riots and lootings that frequently attend them), they ordinarily defend protesting on the grounds that it leads to change. Whether this defense is true or not is a matter for considerable discussion, but what I wish to question is whether it is appropriate for public discourse to be shaped in this manner, whether it works or not.

What Is Not the Question

The question is not whether protests have ever resulted in changes in public policy; undoubtedly, there may have been moments where public demonstrations played into the hands of certain unprincipled politicians and their proposed policies. At a minimum, peaceful protest may call the attention of the public to certain topics, and could have the result of public discussion of certain matters. By their nature, however, they tend to be sloganesque; they find clever ways of expressing and articulating slogans, but they rarely (if ever) produce a sufficiently cogent argument or study report to convince another by rational means. They are more likely to rally the already-convinced than to persuade the unconvinced, because that is what slogans do.

What Is the Question

The question, however, is this: Should protest be a part of civil discourse, and/or is it even entitled to be called “civil” discourse? Should riots affect public policy, for instance? Should policy-makers frame public policy on the basis of careful study, relevant facts, and reasonable applications of the Constitution and pertinent legislation, or should they cow-tow to the implicit “might-makes-right” actions of rioters and looters (or even peaceful protestors)? Should Portland, for instance, reduce the size of its police budget out of fear of, or response to, rioting and looting (or even peaceful protests)?

There are ways for a public that is unhappy with its government agencies to redress their grievances. They may elect representatives who share their views, and/or they may gather petitions in order to instigate a public referendum, either of which probably requires a certain amount of actual fact-gathering and/or concentrated study. They may request studies of certain matters, or write letters to their legislators, to inform them of their concerns. Would we not prefer such fact-gathering or study or rational conversation as a basis for framing public policy? Would we prefer that protestors, rioters, or looters, without facts, study, or cogent reasoning, frame our public policy?

Protesting, rioting, and looting may make good spectator sport, but are they a legitimate basis for drafting public policy? What per centage of Portlandians, for example, are protesting, rioting, or looting? 1%? 3%? Should such a small minority—even if they later turn out to be right—be regarded as an adequate basis for framing public policy? One would think, in the case of police-force size, for example, there must be some national figures about the size of a police force as a fraction of the local populations. Such figures might even show differences between urban, suburban, and rural communities, or differences due to population density. Either way, one would suspect that there is some national trend that may be based on reasonable assumptions about how many police-per-capita are needed. Even this national figure could be rationally discussed; if the national average were one officer per thousand residents, for instance (I have no idea what the number is), we could have intelligent discussion about that number, and could adjust the number upward or downward, based upon reasonable and rational figures, such as response-time to 911 calls. In the present situation, however, on the rare incidence of perceptions of police behaving badly (and, in some cases, that perception proves to be mistaken), some people desire a reduction in the size of the police force in order to curb such perceived abuses. But the abuses—where they genuinely occur—are probably not a result of the size of the police force; they are probably due either to personal failings of the individuals involved or failures in the process of police training, neither of which would be addressed by simply reducing the size of the force. Merely reducing the size of the force numerically offers no assurance that the particular officers relieved of office were the “bad eggs;” it is entirely possible that good officers would be fired and the duds would remain, but the ratio of good officers to duds would not change merely due to reductions in size.

My concern regarding the summer of 2020, then, is not whether the protests, the riots, and/or the lootings will affect public policy, but whether they should affect public policy? Is this any way to conduct public policy?

Dr. T. David Gordon is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and serves as Professor of Religion and Greek at Grove City College.