Which Has Made a Greater Impact on American Society since 1945 Law or Lawlessness - Coursework Example

Law or lawlessness? Introduction: The history of America since 1945 includes momentous events such as the Civil Rights Movement, the War in Vietnam and student protests and demonstrations, all of which have shaken up the foundations of American society and brought about changes that have transformed America as it existed in the first part of the decade. Incidents such as the civil rights demonstrations, the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King and the riots and disturbances in campuses provide an indication that lawlessness has played a major role in bringing about these transformative changes. While the American people are a largely law abiding group, this radical period in the country’s history is significant in that it clearly demonstrates how lawlessness has had a greater impact on American Society than law itself. Three major events in American history are assessed to demonstrate this aspect: (a) the Civil Disobedience Movement (b) the War against Poverty and (c) the emergence of the criminal culture that propelled these changes. The Civil Disobedience Movement: In respect to the question of whether or not people were to obey the law where the Civil Rights movement was concerned, two opposing perspectives were offered by the two notable civil rights leaders – Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. According to Dr King (1969:72-89), he was a part of the Birmingham upheavals because “injustice” was present and “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”. He detailed the four steps in a non violent campaign –collection of facts to determine whether injustice exists, negotiation, self purification and finally direct action. Therefore Dr King advocated a breaking of the law only when all other means fail. In opposition to this position, Malcolm X (2003:105-108) advocated violence when necessary to secure rights through his motto of “the ballot or the bullet” whereby blacks were to be allowed to vote legitimately in the elections or else unleash violence in order to influence the Government accordingly. Yet, the similarity of the positions of both leaders may be noted in that they both questioned whether the civil rights they sought could be attained through existing laws. Dr Martin Luther King (1969: 72-89) made a clear distinction between just and unjust laws, wherein “an unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself.” He detailed the long history of oppression of the “colored people” and their patient wait for over 340 years to secure their constitutional rights to equality. In a similar way, Malcolm X (2003: 105-108) detailed this same degrading treatment of the colored races in that they were the victim[s] of the American system. Despite birth in America, the fundamental rights that rightfully belong to every citizen – civil rights –were denied to the colored races, who were forced to fight for as if it was not their constitutional birthright. Dr King indicated the willingness of the black people to break laws, in a similar manner Malcolm X also spoke of the need to use lawless means to achieve their rights since lawful means of redressal were not available to them. Therefore both these leaders differed only in the means they advocated to achieve their ends. Dr King advocated peaceful demonstrations and marches to achieve civil rights while Malcolm X incited his followers to violence where necessary to achieve the cause of equality. Civil rights was achieved as the result of the Civil Disobedience Movement, where lawlessness prevailed. Therefore, it may be concluded that in this aspect, lawlessness has made a greater impact upon American society than following the law. As far as Civil Rights are concerned, the liberation of the blacks did not come for years when they obeyed the law and lived as law abiding citizens, their liberation and freedom were at hand only when they took decisive steps to engage in lawless means such as demonstrations, marches, strikes and rebellion in order to achieve the desired ends. Tweed, Segal and Packer (1969: 90-97) have also pointed out how civil disobedience of the law was an integral part of the achievement of civil rights for the blacks. The War against Poverty: The period following the IInd World War and the Great Depression was one where there was a drastic realignment of economic priorities and financial resources of the country as a result of Franklin Roosevelt’s New deal. The Depression brought poverty and joblessness to every sector of the American economy, both black and white, and drastic measures were called for. The provisions of the New Deal introduced by President Roosevelt, which included the Social Security System to provide retirement insurance and a revamping of the banking system with the tightening of financially risky transactions through the introduction of federally insured deposits in banks further aided in economic recoveries in the country. As a measure in the War against poverty and the move to provide true equality for its citizens, the Government allowed weekly or monthly payments to individuals steeped in poverty who qualified to receive federal aid. By providing such public assistance in meeting subsistence demands through welfare payments, the objective of the Government was to alleviate poverty and provide all its citizens equal opportunity for participation in community life. However, prior to 1970 when the Supreme Court heard the important case of Goldberg v Kelly, (Davis, 1993:81-113) such payments were considered as charitable endowments rather than entitlements. But in the 1960’s, the collaboration of welfare recipients and a new breed of anti poverty lawyers brought about a legal campaign that pushed for the constitutional right to welfare (Kornbluh, 1997: 75-113). As a result, significant changes occurred in the Social Security payments system prevailing in the United States with its link to constitutional rights of an individual resulting in the evolution of the Social Security System to its present form (Davis 1993). On this basis therefore, it may be stated that measures to alleviate poverty in the country were achieved to some extent through a legal framework, as exemplified in the work of the poverty lawyers. However, it must be noted that the relief provided to the economy and in the alleviation of poverty was not achieved without any lawlessness. Unemployed farmers and laborers went on strikes and acts of violence had to be tackled on an emergent basis by the Government through the introduction of the reform measures of the New Deal. Therefore, such changes were also achieved only through lawlessness. It was only in the late 1960s and 1970s that the anti poverty measures such as disposition of welfare payments, were further refined through law – such as for example, in allowing the Government the right to reject welfare payments for individuals not entitled to them. Criminal Culture: The period of the mid Sixties and early Seventies was one of unrest and turmoil in American society. Riots broke out in many cities and were a part of the sustained fight to secure justice and civil rights for both the Negros and women (Bloom and Breines, 2003:38-40). While the need to resist foreign aggression as exemplified in the Communist movement was considered vital (Bloom and Breines, 2003:290-91), Senator Barry Goldwater in his 1964 acceptance speech at the GOP Convention in the 1964 Presidential campaign laid the foundations for the crackdown against emerging criminal trends within the country by stating: “Security from domestic violence, no less than from foreign aggression is the most elementary form and fundamental purpose of any Government.” (2003:291-94). This was buttressed by the initiatives that had already been taken by the Johnson Government. Nixon (2003: 294-297) elaborated further on the inherent recognition in Goldwater’s speech of the criminalization of American society and the dangers of mob rule taking over in the United States by stating as follows in a news conference: “the deterioration [in the law and order situation] can be traced directly to the spread of the corrosive doctrine that every citizen possesses an inherent right to decide for himself which laws to obey and when to disobey them.” However, there was a difference in the reasons attributed by Goldwater and Nixon for the criminal disturbances. While Nixon equated these with the Civil disobedience movement of the blacks, Goldwater pointed out that the post war reallocations of resources, through welfare payments to fight the war against poverty, were the real cause for the unrest and violence. His view was that since Government, through the redistribution of the country’s resources, was taking away from some people to give to others, therefore citizens in turn felt free to forcefully take away resources from others. The onset of violence and riots in the late 60s and 70s also supports the position that American society has been changed more by lawlessness as opposed to the law. The Civil Disobedience Movement in the United States led to the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, however the passing of this law was not successful in eliminating years of prejudice, slavery and hatred between the races. For example, the burning of Watts in Los Angeles (Crouch, 2001:346-348) is just another visible sign of the underlying resentment of the blacks against years of oppression and economic injustice. Therefore, the framework of the law was unable to fully achieve the equality sought by this minority section of society, however it was the subsequent riots and unrest in society that was finally able to achieve equal opportunities in employment for blacks through the setting up of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other moves that addressed the economic inequalities in society. Conclusion: On the basis of the above therefore, it must be stated that most of the radical changes that have occurred in American society since the beginning of the 20th century were not achieved within the framework of the law. The civil disturbances, riots and upheavals were signs of the deep rooted injustices and economic disparities prevailing in American society. While the passing of civil rights laws and anti poverty measures helped to address some of these inequalities, these changes occurred only after lawlessness was unleashed in America. The civil rights disturbances and the violence and riots that erupted in the late 60s and 70s were the causal factors in bringing about radical changes in American society, rather than the slow and gradual process of change over many decades that occurs within a framework of law. Thus it may be concluded that the changes in American society from 1945 to 75 were impacted much more greatly by lawlessness. References: * Bloom, Alexander and Brienes, Wini, 2003. “Takin’ it to the streets: A Sixties reader” (2nd edn) - Goldwater, Barry. “1964 Acceptance Speech”, pp 291-84 - Malcolm X . “The Ballot or the Bullet”, pp 105-108 - Nixon, Richard. “If mob rule takes hold in the U.S.”, pp 294-97 - Sharon Statement, Young Americans for Freedom, pp 290-91. - SNCC Position paper: Women in the Movement”. pp 38040 * “Civil Disobedience: Theory and Practice” (edn Hugo Adam Bedau) (1969) New York: Pegasus. - Martin Luther King, Jr. “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, pp 72-89 - Tweed, Harrison, Segal, Bernard G and Packer, Herbert L. “Civil Rights and Disobedience to Law”, pp 90-97 * Davis, Martha, 1993. “Brutal need: Lawyers and the Welfare Rights Movement” New Haven: Yale University Press, pp 1-55 * Kornbluh, Felicia, 1997. “To fulfil their rightly needs: Consumerism and the Welfare Rights Movement” Radical History review, 69: 75-113. * “Voices in our Blood.” 2001. (edn: John Meacham) New York: Random House. - Crouch, Stanley. “When Watts Burned”, pp 346-348 Read More