Show 'em which side are you on now?

Last weekend, NATO leaders gathered in Chicago for one of their irregularly scheduled summits, and Chicagoland news stations nearly peed themselves with excitement. During the week or more of intense coverage of the event, grave broadcasters portentously speculated if, how, and to what extent the 1968 Democratic National Convention would be recapitulated during the summit, how the Chicago Police Department would manage the protesters and spectating crowds, and whether terrorizing threats would surface and, if so, how they would be handled. Occasionally some coverage of the content of the NATO talks would slip in.

When all was said and done after the weekend was over, newscasters were somewhat deflatingly forced to admit that the NATO summit went down more or less entirely as planned. The world leaders assembled, grumbled at each other for a while, and went home safely. The protesters assembled, rallied, and went home safely too (save for a riotous handful who presumably went home safely after temporary incarceration). As one Tribune article commented, "In the end, the summit proved a one-weekend blip on the radar of a major urban metropolis used to crowds, conventions, dignitaries and hoopla."

Consequently, in the absence of more interesting news, and from my non-involved and spectating vantage point, one of the most interesting outcomes of the whole NATO kerfuffle was the fact that it served as an interesting thermometer for peoples' gut-based political stances. Those generally distrustful of governments and/or the military had their allegiances revealed when they zeroed in on indications (whether real or imagined) of shady law enforcement practices or excessive use of police force. Those generally supportive of government leadership did a lot of sighing about the pointlessness, inappropriateness, and/or directionlessness of the protests.

My own reaction to the NATO summit is telling in that, overwhelmingly, my sympathies were with the CPD. While I generally had fluctuating reactions to both the NATO gathering and the protesters themselves, I was unwaveringly defensive of the police, who get problematically aligned de facto with NATO in the "summit vs. protesters" binary, but in reality more accurately simply represent The Rules. As a Tribune editorial commented, the [albeit seemingly excessive] police presence existed as part of their day-to-day "business of keeping the city safe." It's thus both unfair and unfortunate that officers get automatically mixed up in protesters' ire. Ideally a neutral force that respects the rights of both NATO and Occupy, CPD's job was to preserve "a place where world leaders could gather and citizens could assemble to speak their minds. If those citizens chose to taunt those assigned to protect them — by calling a police escort a 'pig on a horse,' for example — well, the officers would just have to look the other way." Seeing as the NATO protests in no way became an encore of the 1968 riots, the consensus is that the CPD executed their role effectively.

Overwhelmingly, I believe that what my loyalties expose about me is the fact that I am a Rule Follower -- which, given my presumptive goal of becoming the living embodiment of Milhouse, should come as a shock to no one. My instinctive sympathy with the police and my subsequent satisfaction with their success suggest that I trust in the wisdom of The Rules and believe in the rightness and efficacy of Rule enforcement.

Aside from contributing to my candidacy for a wedgie, my status as a Rule Follower interests me because I consistently get the distinct feeling that I'm in the minority. My gut impulse -- to trust first in The Rules and question or repel them when they prove themselves ineffective -- often feels somehow subversive against the perhaps more youthful attitude that rules are meant to be broken and The Establishment should be questioned until proven trustworthy. I personally don't tend to consider myself a mindless drone, unquestioningly abiding all rules and regulations bestowed from the governmental On High like mandates from HypnoToad, (after all, as an official member of the liberal arts ivory tower, I'm obliged to advocate critical thinking always and forever), and so I tend to be baffled by those who view The Establishment as a monolithic evil, who remain constitutionally contrary to anything that It has to say.