Letter: When does a city honor become meaningless?

I have been a cheerleader for my chosen hometown. I have been a critic. But I have never been more disappointed in the choices of Rochester than I was as the city hall dome glowed red, white and blue in honor of the late Congressman Jim Hagedorn.

There is no reason to rejoice when somebody dies, no matter how one felt about that person. Finding cheer in a person’s death gives that person a power they never had in life and it reveals more about the cheerful than about the dead. But how we celebrate and honor somebody's life is a choice; it is discretionary and based on values. And our city made the wrong choice.

During his political career, for which he was honored, Representative Hagedorn used communities like ours as a corrosive foil for his politics. That’s as old as time and fair and he was legitimately elected twice on that strategy and message. That’s democracy in action, the legitimate choice of Minnesota’s First Congressional District. But on January 7, 2021, Rep. Hagedorn voted against certifying a free and fair election. Maybe he did it out of true belief, or maybe out of cynicism, but the end result was the same: the further weakening of our already fragile shared democracy.

It’s true that the Jan. 7 vote was Rep. Hagedorn’s choice to make. But how we responded as a city was ours. There is no city charter requirement for this city hall honor. No ordinance. No First District law. And by making this choice, our city played a small but meaningful role in rejuvenating the legacies of those who used their power to circumvent the democratic fabric we know and rely on for life and freedom. The grotesque irony of illuminating Rochester city hall in red, white and blue lights to honor somebody who actively chose to destabilize and diminish what those colors stand for should rattle every patriotic Rochesterite. I know this might sound like highfalutin pretentious bullshit. It’s not.

Our choice speaks to a blind devotion to performing the script of civility at the expense of real life civility. Maybe we did it because we hope that through this “classy” act, real-life civility will magically return. Or maybe we did it out of fear of a lobbed accusation: “Insensitive!” But it is moral hazard and gives cover and comfort to behavior that has already birthed political violence. It says, there is no price to pay. It says, the only standard for “honor” is having lived.

When we call this act an “honor” it suggests a set of values. So what are those values? Does the “honor” demand an honorable life or service? What would it take to have this honor denied? I ask this seriously. Marijuana use? Tax evasion? Murder? Or is it not an honor at all but an obligation whose only standard is death? Being a city celebrated for saving lives is not the same as having values. And respect and community, if not reelection, comes from speaking the truth and having values.

I know that many want to get this over with and move on. Some may find it repugnant to even debate it. I understand that and I sympathize. But if death releases us from all consequences of our life, then how can we expect anyone to consider consequences during life? If we honor anybody then we diminish this honor for everybody, reducing its value to that of a keychain penlight bought on a whim from a gas station. If lighting up city hall is simply automated and rote, then what value is in there in receiving the honor? It’s a choice we can make, and we chose wrong.

—Abe Sauer, Rochester