Who Gets a Spot on the Sidewalk?

Remember that scene in Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11? Remember the eggs? I don’t think that’ll be happening this time around. Unprecedented security and extremely restricted access for non-Bush supporters have made the absence of eggs almost a certainty. Accessibility and visibility for demonstrators—including groups that oppose abortion rights—will be at an all-time low at this years events.

The issue to consider here is the role of visibility for political opposition. Should opposition to the president’s policies be visible during the parade or during the ceremony? The notion of a ceremony like certainly doesn’t sound very pleasant. Can you imagine anti-war protestors sitting side-by-side with Rudi Giuliani at the ceremony? Uncomfortable!

It seems two issues have led to reduced visibility this time around. One is the enormous amount of security that President Bush requires when he goes anywhere. Second is the fact that the parade is funded by the Presidential Inaugural Committee—a group that is funded by private corporation and individual donors. But DC has been forced to pay a hefty bill in security costs thanks to the events, costing tax payers millions (estimated 17.3 million). So, local tax dollars are being spent on the parade, albeit indirectly. The ceremony itself is publicly funded.

The funding issue is only one of many reasons to raise concerns about reduced visibility for protestors. I think it’s a relatively small reason too. The security threat is an argument for restricting visibility and access, but it isn’t a bulletproof one. Demonstrators have been given other restrictions, which have been challenged in court. For instance, they originally were not allowed to use stakes for their signs. Without them, it would be hard to make the signs visible. As always, there’s a messy debate about balancing free speech rights and security. I tend to lean towards free speech. Once we start limiting that for security reasons, I think we’re headed down a dangerous road. Security is obviously important, but we should be honest about its costs; we’re rarely honest about costs of free speech. On the other hand, authorities aren’t saying they can’t protest. They’re saying that it should be done where guests and invitees can’t see them. That’s a sticky issue, right? What’s limiting free speech? Is limiting visibility the same thing?

To me, the main issue is honesty. It’s at least not entirely fair that demonstrators are restricted at these events. While it creates an ugly scene that reflects internal divisions in a country that is at war, our lack of unity behind this president is real and honest. I’m not sure that it’s right to hide it. On the other hand, I don’t like ugly scenes either and I do value traditions that allow us to honor the Office of the President. In the end, we should be honest. The security threat may be real, but I’m sure some of the methods are being used for political purposes just as much as security purposes. At the very least, security measures that are chosen happen to be politically convenient and that convenience certainly does not help arguments against those measures. I’m not advocating protestors at the ceremony. I’m saying that we should be honest about why we don’t want them there. It’s mainly because we like our traditions to remain undisturbed, to exude a sense of unity and because we want to keep our private donors happy. We should say that we don’t want them there because they’re potentially dangerous (but who isn’t?), ugly, loud, unsettling, and happen to disagree with the people be inaugurated. Let’s just say so! What are we afraid of? We’re still going to keep the demonstrators out! In fact, we’re not saying they can’t protest. We’re just saying they need to do it someplace else. This way I’ll be a little less unhappy knowing that at least we’re not being dishonest about why we’re reducing their visibility.