Cathy Gellis, a Berkeley native, writes an eloquent essay at her place about the brouhaha in Berkeley, and she makes a point that I'm surpised I hadn't seen sooner:
I think it is important to point this out to all of Berkeley's critics, however zealous or dismissive, Berkeley
is one of the few American municipalities with the unfortunate
distinction of having had the military turn against its own residents.
We need go back in history no further than 1969, when then-governor
Ronald Reagan dispatched the National Guard against people in Berkeley.
This action helped cement local antipathy against the military by
providing eminent justification for it. It is therefore extremely
unfair for critics to resent Berkeley for its memory. Because it has
seen firsthand the violent destruction the military can cause, it is
perfectly reasonable for it not to want any part of it.
Well stated and an important consideration. Her essay goes on to say, however, that she is:
[N]ot sure I quite agree with what the city council is trying to do. It
raises all sorts of questions, like whether it's generally appropriate
for a local government to take this kind of stand, whether the means by
which it is taking the stand are appropriate, and of course whether the
actual stand itself is warranted. Personally, while I'm against the
war, I do find it concerning that as part of its action the city
government is providing such strong endorsement for a specific anti-war
group, support that, ironically, strikes me as potentially
unconstitutional in a First Amendment sort of way. I'm also not sure
whether the city government can presume such hegemony among its
citizens' opinions to justify taking such a unilateral action.
Republicans also live in the town, and it would be antithetical to the
liberal spirit of Berkeley to marginalize minorities. It's their city government too.
A thoughful analysis the likes of which I haven't seen in the mainstream media.
Statements of Interest, the name of Gellis' blog, is an apt title it seems.
