Why do you have to do this?

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

As a student of politics and public affairs, I find it interesting how the mileau in which events occur so dramatically affects the public’s perceptions of individuals.  I was reminded of this while watching Bridge of Spies, in which the protagonist James B. Donovan is asked by the Court and his law firm to take on the defense of a man accused of being a Russian spy.  As the story takes place during the Cold War and the American public’s panic about anything named “Communist,” Donovan is roundly criticized–and worse. Indeed, at one point, his daughter ‘s peaceful viewing of 77 Sunset Strip on television is interrupted by gunfire through the living room window. A policeman arriving at the scene blames Donovan. “Why do you have to do this?” asks this officer sworn to uphold the Constitution, including the right of an accused person to competent counsel.

John Adams faced similar censure when he took on the defense of the British soldiers who shot civilians during the 1770 Boston Massacre. It was an era of intense anti-British fervor.  David McCullough notes:

Adams accepted, firm in the belief, as he said, that no man in a free country should be denied the right to counsel and a fair trial.  As lawyer, his duty was clear.  That he would be hazarding his hard-earned reputation, and in his words, “incurring a clamor and popular suspicions and prejudice” against him, was obvious.

Imagine making this argument in the midst of that environment:

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence: nor is the law less stable than the fact; if an assault was made to endanger their lives, the law is clear, they had a right to kill in their own defence.

What may not be obvious to the general public in such situations is the degree to which the controversy reaches into one’s family life. As in Donovan’s case, the protagonist essentially puts his family at risk to stand for a matter of principle that is essential for the society to maintain protections for all. As in Donovan’s case, too, the spouses’ views are not always consistent with one another. His wife raised serious objections to his decision to represent the alleged spy.

I don’t want to overstate the case or put myself in the category of these great men, but I had a chance to get a sense of what this feels like when I was running the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.  Under a Federal Court order, the agency was carrying out the $4 billion Boston Harbor Cleanup. A relatively small part of the project involved building a landfill to receive what are termed “grit and screenings” from the wastewater stream.  These are waste products in the sewage that cannot be recycled or reused: They must be placed in a sanitary landfill.

After an extensive site selection, thorough technical analysis, and detailed environmental review process–approved by state and federal regulatory agencies–we determined that a practical and appropriate place to build the landfill would be in Walpole, MA, near the state prison in that town, and near the border of the neighboring town of Norfolk.  As you might expect, this engendered intense local opposition.

Well, the organizers of the opposition decided that the fight would be more effective if it were presented as a personal attack against me.  It did not help that everyone running for governor (in both parties) at that time said that the landfill should go to that as yet undiscovered town called “Someplace Else.”  That’s OK and to be expected–just part of the job–but the mood at the time permitted things to get out of hand.

Soon I was receiving persistent and continuous calls on my home telephone line, many of which contained death threats and other threats against me and my family.  Pickets showed up at the house, timed not to coincide with my presence but rather with the arrival of my two little girls as they came home from elementary school.  We’d wake up in the morning to find trash thrown on our front lawn.  Some kind of chemical was spilled on portions of the grass, killing it.  And in one case, a decapitated squirrel was tossed in the front yard for effect.  The phone calls continued: “Watch your back” was a favorite theme.  This was before telephones had caller ID, and when the telephone company investigated the origin of the calls, there were so many hundreds that the particular messages could not be traced to specific individuals.  Because of the threats, we were forced to employ a 24-hour police guard in front of our house for many weeks.

It was during this time that my wife, always supportive of my public service, felt compelled to say, “I didn’t sign up for this, to have our children threatened by a mob.”  I responded, “But if you give in, you’ve let the fascists win.”  We went to our rabbi for advice at the time, and he remarked that it was the age-old debate and conflict that families have faced in similar situations:  How you balance the legitimate needs of family protection with the imperative to protect the societal need for lawfulness?

Fortunately, in our case, things settled down.  No one was hurt.  Issues were resolved.

For me personally, the experience created a type of resiliency and willingness to dive in again in other settings; but I could certainly see how the opposite might occur.  Who could blame someone for withdrawing from public life and such controversy in the face of threats against you and your family?

As I watched the movie, I felt deeply for both Mr. and Mrs. Donovan. They both were American heroes. The country is a stronger place for what they went through together.