Aug 10

Aug 10 Lethargic

Chicago, Demonstrations, Protest, Public Declarations

Today, I headed to the tony section of Highland Park for a demonstration at 1425 Waverly Road organized by the Pro-Life Action League. The owner of the large mansion set above the ravines that give Ravina its descriptive name was hosting a fundraiser for Governor J.B. Pritzker’s re-election campaign. While Pritzker might have touched on abortion rights when he delivered his obligatory “thank-you for attending” remarks, I doubt whether it was the topic du jour for those who ponied-up what must have been an “admissions fee” in the thousands, if not tens-of-thousands of dollars range.

The fundraiser was scheduled for sometime around 6:00 PM, so I arrived shortly before 4:00 PM, parking my car on a tree-lined street flanked by architecturally noteworthy homes set on professionally manicured lots. These were not the McMansions that dot new subdivisions in the suburbs. Many could have been designed by Richard Neutra or other prominent mid-20th Century architects. In one case, I knew the home sat on the cliffs above Lake Michigan because the sheet-like facade of glass revealed more lake than interior.

To put it bluntly, the Pro-Life advocates did not bring anything approximating even a “B” game, resulting in a counterproductive effort. I had received several emails about the rally, so I assumed there would be a large turnout. Between 20 and 25 demonstrators showed up, and that is a charitable estimate. Putting that number in perspective were an equal number of what appeared to be youthful college students shuttling cars from the home’s entrance to parking spaces further along the street. All were attired in black pants and yellow-orange polo shirts.

In one email, Eric J. Scheidler, the executive director of the Pro-Life Action League, said he was expecting media coverage. A lone Chicago Tribune photographer showed up, as did an ABC7 News truck, with a cameraman. As of 10:30 PM, I still have seen no coverage of the event on either news outlet’s website. The reason is simple: The demonstration was a bust.

Unlike their abortion-rights counterparts, the pro-lifers who attended did not engage in group chants or aggressive picketing. Their signage exhibited no plays on words or humor. Standing quietly on a bridge that spans a ravine, several of the demonstrators held large (maybe four-foot by three-foot) signs, each bearing the same image of an aborted fetus, identified as 15 weeks old. Other demonstrators stood nearby, largely engaged in what appeared to be small talk. No one was animated. No one was vocal. Many had a distinct slouch, often using the signs for support.

Standing apart from the others, two women planted directly in front of the house held a banner referencing Roe v. Wade; one of the women repeated the same lines as each group of guests arrived. To paraphrase, “this is an abortion party; Illinois doesn’t protect young women from sex traffickers; and Illinois doesn’t require parental consent for abortions despite requiring it for all other operations.” While some of Tom Wolfe’s social x-rays walking up the winding tree-lined driveway took the bait, most just kept moving toward a chilled glass of Chardonnay and some tasty canapés prepared by a high-end catering service.

Nobody standing on the street saw Governor Pritzker when he arrived. Presumably he was sitting behind the tinted windows of the black Ford SUV that pulled into the driveway, where the driver strategically maneuvered it so that the shrubbery would hide a large-framed man emerging from the vehicle. The tell was the lanky, suit-clad gentlemen talking into his lapel as the SUV came to a rest. I suspect he was reporting back on whether Pritzker would be visible from the street as he exited the SUV. It is possible that this particular vehicle was a decoy because about 30 minutes later, two more black SUVs entered the driveway, but I didn’t see the lanky man overseeing their arrival, so I assume Pritzker had arrived in the first SUV.

The pro-life demonstration didn’t make strategic sense. Undoubtedly, some attending the fundraiser wanted to talk abortion rights given developments in Indiana and Kansas, but those who attend these sorts of affairs would also have other issues on their minds—taxes, government regulation, public pension liabilities, public education, government contracts, infrastructure, employment relations, workers’ comp, and a panoply of other matters that concern those who run businesses and investment firms. By choosing to highlight abortion today, the demonstrators most likely contributed to a lengthier airing of concerns about abortion rights inside than otherwise would have occurred.

Outside, some of the demonstrators hid their faces and turned their backs to the camera, which always puzzles me. Presumably, Scheidler notified the media about the rally. One of his emails even indicated that he expected a media presence, something that he presumably desires. So why did some demonstrators act as if they were ashamed or embarrassed by what they were doing? As for me, I wear two picture IDs, so demonstrators know that I am not with the FBI or some opposing group. Scheidler has a Go-Pro-like device attached to his belt with a red light blinking, so I have no doubt that I am on video, which is fine by me.

If I were Scheidler, going forward, I would take a different approach. Rather than baiting people, as that young woman did, I would bring a couple of cardtables, with a sign on each that read, “Discussion Zone.” Maybe toss in some cookies, coffee, and ice tea. The two sides might take advantage of the opportunity to participate in a civil discourse; the primary purpose would be to gain an understanding of each other’s positions rather than the changing minds. But I am probably naive; abortion seems to pose an intractable problem best suited for screaming matches and raised middle fingers.

The rally’s choice of venue does raise an interesting question. The far-right was very disturbed by the protests outside the homes of several U.S. Supreme Court Justices earlier this year, arguing that someone’s home should be off limits. Given those objections, one might reasonably ask: Were these demonstrators hypocritical?

I could argue for them that today’s protest differed from the ones that took place following the leak in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. In this case, the homeowner was using his or her residence as part of fundraising and political activity, so the usage arguably converts the residence into something other than just a private residence where the homeowner raises his or her kids, eats dinner, sleeps, and watches television. Others may still see hypocrisy.

Overall, Scheidler would be well advised to rethink how he structures his rallies and whom he invites to attend them, given the rally’s poor turnout and lethargic ethos. By targeting a fundraiser for the Governor, Scheidler encouraged powerful people with financial wherewithal to demand that the Governor protect abortion rights. It brought abortion rights front and center.

I do have to give Scheidler credit. He was nowhere near as doctrinaire as I assumed he might be. I spoke briefly with him. He struck me as easy going and reasonable.

As a personal aside: One of the protesters wanted to know why I was still wearing a mask outdoors. She joins the Proud Boys and some seemingly radical abortion-rights activists who have questioned my continued use of a mask when exposed to crowds in outdoor settings—although today there wasn’t much of a crowd. I almost asked her whether she was also curious whether I wear boxers or briefs, but I kept my mouth shut.

[Click on an Image to Enlarge It]