Humpty Dumpty’s Theorem and Lessons in Political Demagoguery
By Scott Daniels, PhD
In a scene from Lewis Carroll’s fairy tale, Through the Looking-Glass,[i] Alice and Humpty Dumpty have a sophisticated exchange on the role of language. Their exchange captures much of what has been called, “our contemporary moral confusion,”[ii] especially in the realm of political argument. Humpty Dumpty declares that the meaning of words in everyday language rests with the speaker’s arbitrary and unaccountable use:
“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that's all.’”
Let’s call Humpty’s manipulative use of language “Humpty Dumpty’s Theorem.” Lines like these tempt us to think that Carroll was a political satirist. He wasn’t. But who could resist the parallels to today’s polarized political jungle, especially to hear the Democrats wail against a fairy tale legislation of their own making?
The purpose of the Veterans War Memorial Protection Act is to prescribe a peaceful and more democratic approach to removing a veteran war memorial. Not surprisingly, anti-confederate opposition to this proposal purposefully misrepresented the purpose. A consensus objection emerged to desecrating the Confederate War memorials during 2020-2021 directed more narrowly at the militant means of their destruction. Moral outrage was palpable on all sides. But the multicultural protagonists’ irreverent disposal, more so than the removal itself, galvanized the focus of criticism against their desecration. It is the legal condition that made possible the destruction of Monument Avenue by the left – like the provocations from the extreme right leading to the destruction of the Lee monument in Charlottesville – that we sought to address in the proposed legislation.
The Virginia Council supported legislation to address the removal of veteran war memorials (monuments and markers) of all 15 wars identified in The Code of Virginia (Code). It did not address deliberation for erecting war monuments, nor the particular significance of the monuments regarding their symbolism of personal or social ideals. More recent memorials could have a 40-year life. Memorials older than 40 years (e.g. Revolutionary or Civil Wars) as is the case for all memorials evaluated for removal would be subject to a mandatory referendum requiring a favorable motion from two-thirds of the voters. Local leadership could affirm or reject the election with a two-thirds majority.
Not surprisingly, the proposal did not survive committee support in either chamber of the General Assembly. Democrats were hostile, and Republicans appeared disinterested. However, we are deeply appreciative that Sen. Sturtevant (SB1429) and Del. Williams (HB1884) sponsored the proposal. The Democrats demagogued the bill. Moreover, there is a remarkable pattern to their oral criticism. Let’s consider them briefly.
First, the alleged violation of local autonomy. The proposed guidance to localities aligns with Virginia’s long-standing Dillon Rule in preserving local autonomy. Only an authoritarian view of local government can view a mandatory referendum requiring substantial community participation, allowing local elected leadership to affirm the outcome could misrepresent these provisions as dictatorial.
Second, the requirements of democracy are too burdensome. The Democrat committee members actually said they had not heard of a two-thirds majority for rendering a decision. The proposed rule is patterned after the governor’s veto. This higher standard reflects different conceptions of democracy. Their view of a referendum of a simple majority of voters on the day of the election, or “pure democracy” – to paraphrase our Founders – is tantamount to mob rule.
But our government is a democratic republic. It is a reasoned or principled form of democracy. As one Republican Senator on the committee, who had experienced in his district the chaos resulting from removing a monument, insightfully remarked, the proposed higher standard “might not change the outcome of the referendum on a memorial, but it could change the acceptance of it.” Peaceful resolution within local communities is precisely the point of our legislation! The other democratic requirement assigning a forty-year lifespan came from The Constitution of Virginia where the state can grant public land leases to counties up to 40 years. The number of years, however, is negotiable for any Democrat interested in peaceful resolutions.
Third, the memories of soldiers of the Confederate wars ought not to be commingled with the honorable service of soldiers from other wars. Indeed, the proposed bill does not discriminate against the merits for any soldiers serving and dying for our country regardless of the cause. This bill is indifferent to the cause of a war. It is not concerned with the reason for erecting or sustaining a memorial. It is concerned solely with the removal of the war memorial. The sole purpose of this bill is to set the conditions – now lacking in the present law – for the people of a community to peacefully decide the fate of a memorial. They have singled out one war for special treatment even though they openly acknowledge the historical nuances and vicissitudes surrounding the Civil War and its attachment to the evil of slavery.
It is precisely because of the troubling ambiguity of history that the people can and must decide. This bill does not care about the outcome of their communal decision. Moreover, oddly, this argument is the basis for derisively labeling the purpose of our bill as a “carve out” to preserve the Confederate monuments. This is an incredulous position given that the sweep of this bill is inclusionary of soldiers of all 15 wars rather than exclusionary. This allegation of commingling is hypocritical. When the Democrats reformed the law in 2020 they could have simply excised the Civil War from the official list of wars whose monuments are to be protected. They did not do so.
The flaw in the current law is not the local sentiment it enshrines but the lack of democracy it permits. Notwithstanding the Code’s public notices and hearing, which are authorities that municipalities possess independently, its optional referendum permits local despotic forces to mistreat any veteran war memorial, not just Confederate monuments. Perhaps a future General Assembly with a more reasoned outlook will entertain the merit of The Virginia Council’s proposal.
[i]Carroll, Lewis. Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There (Philadelphia: Henry Alters Company, 1897), p. 123. Access at Google Books, 8/22/2018.
[ii]Mitchell, Basil. Morality: Religious and Secular: the Dilemma of the Traditional Conscience. Oxford : Clarendon Press ; New York : Oxford University Press, (1980).
