Magna Carta and the Ancient Right to Flip Off the President
The middle finger of freedom
In the past week the picture of Juli Briskman giving Donald Trump’s motorcade the finger has gone viral, as has the fact that her employer promptly fired her.
It got me thinking about the centuries of legal, political and cultural evolution it took to reach the point that — trigger-happy employers aside — it is safe to flip off the President.
It is certainly not safe around the globe. Run an experiment: try flipping off Vladimir Putin, Robert Mugabe, or Xi Jinping and see if it works out well in the end.
But we don’t need to hypothesize: currently, a 25-year-old woman from New Jersey, living in Harare, is currently facing trial for mocking Mugabe via Twitter. She faces up to 20 years in prison.
In China the prison sentence for disrespecting the National Anthem is about to be raised from 15 days to three years. Take a knee anyone?
Want to know how ten of Vladimir Putin’s critics have fared? You can go here; spoiler alert: they didn’t make it.
Unfortunately, similar examples abound of lands in which if you get too brave you’ll soon find yourself far from free. Think this sort of thing can’t affect us domestically? Witness the brutalization of those protesting Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan on his visit to Washington.
Despite our authoritarian moment, the fact is that flipping off the president is a right of ancient development. It draws on ideas such as the king not being above the law, the state and the king not being synonymous, and the individual retaining a sphere of personal sovereignty to think, speak, pray, mock, and, yes, tweet as he or she pleases. These are ideas which began their development long before America was even conceived of but which are fundamental to what makes America a place in which it is possible to flourish.
After Donald Trump was elected President, a couple of my acquaintances queried whether I would want to stay in America given that I have a British passport and could move home. To some, perhaps, it seemed that no-one in their right mind who had an escape route would neglect to use it. These acquaintances fell into the category of well-educated liberals who were absolutely devastated by Trump’s victory. While I sympathized with how upset they felt, the notion that an escape route was necessary seemed to me to be somewhat lacking in historical and geographical perspective.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of Donald Trump; it seems patently obvious that he lacks the skill set required to competently carry out the role of president. However, the morning after the election, I walked my children to their wonderful school, in a lovely, leafy, safe, suburban neighborhood, and went about my day. That day included reading about the myriad ways in which people were, essentially, flipping off the President Elect.
I am well aware that not everybody’s experience of life in America is as positive as mine. But equally, I know I am not the only person in the country who is living in peace, prosperity, and privilege, with the freedom to flip off the president — whoever he or she might be.
Ironically, of the people most unaware of the limitations on presidential power, the current President of the United States seems to be one of them. His characterization of Putin as a strong leader was not so much an attribution of individual strength but a longing for the United States to adopt a political system in which its leader is unencumbered by constitutional constraints. Trump’s outrage at the checks and balances holding him back indicates that he has little familiarity with crucial components of the American system.
When, in 1936, Princess Elizabeth of York became heir apparent to the British throne (following her uncle’s abdication) she received private tuition in British constitutional history from Henry Marten, Vice-Provost of Eton College. She was to carry out essentially just the ceremonial element of the role of Head of State — her long series of Prime Ministers would be responsible for the political aspect of the job. Nevertheless, it was felt important that she should be well versed in the Constitution of the land in which she was to play such a significant role.
Perhaps private lessons in the American Constitution might not go amiss for future presidents-elect, particularly given that they are responsible for both the ceremonial, dignified part of the job and the political, diplomatic part. Although there is something constitutionally delicious about an aspiring autocrat coming to terms with the limits of his power, although the thought of Donald Trump fuming about the merciless mocking of him in the “Saturday Night Live” skits seems too delightful to give up, it’s probably best if we give each president-in-waiting a good refresher course in the American constitutional system.
Julie Birkman’s middle finger is constitutionally protected, of course. The point isn’t that she isn’t free unless she gets to flip off the president and keep her job. But she certainly would not be free — and neither would we — if she were prosecuted for doing so.
The Birkman episode has been widely touted as an early moment of catharsis in a presidency that might go eight years deep. The long view though would see it as one of many triumphs in the more than 800 years since Magna Carta, i.e. since the ideas, attitudes, and norms which facilitate the freedom to flip off the President began to be codified.
It really is a beautiful thing, for it means we are pretty much free, and that, assuming we avoid nuclear war, there are limits to how regressive the presidency of Donald Trump can actually be.
Now the recent phenomena of trial by social media and of inquisition and re-education by HR departments — those really are regressive and might end up being reasons to leave. I hope there’s somewhere left to go.
