Recruit New Resisters through Letters or Face-to-Face Outreach

The personal touch of receiving a thoughtful letter from a resister or having a one-on-one discussion can make the difference between a person considering tax resistance “maybe someday” or “how about now.”

Example Poll Tax Resistance

The rebellion against Thatcher’s poll tax used several creative, face-to-face outreach strategies:

The Aberdeen chapter of the campaign enlisted a local theater group to create a performance about the poll tax. They put on shows in neighborhoods, and afterwards held meetings at which they explained how to resist registration and how to set up support groups.
Another group went door-to-door in Easton distributing a poster for people to put up in the windows of their homes that read “No Poll Tax Here.” They waited to see which households displayed the posters, and then made a second visit to those homes. In this way they recruited enough committed activists to form the core of a local group.
A film crew shot footage for a documentary about the poll tax rebels in Easton. This became an opportunity for more face-to-face contact among potential activists. Campaign historian Danny Burns recalls:

The film was never shown, but the way the community was engaged in the process of making it is instructive. The film producers wanted a shot of all the doors in the street, opening one by one as the occupants came out of their houses with banners and signs. Charles, the local street rep, went round to people’s houses every evening for a week and explained to them what was wanted. Out of 30 houses in the street (a cul-de-sac) 28 agreed to participate. The street is multi-racial with a fairly wide class mix. It was inspiring to see white working class men standing shoulder to shoulder with Asian women and their kids, holding the same banners and engrossed in conversation. Some of them had never spoken to each other before. The film was made, but more importantly, as [a] result of making it, virtually every one of those households joined the Union, and most still had posters in their windows a year later. People were brought into the campaign, not through a leaflet or a canvasser, but through an interesting activity. They didn’t have to go to the campaign, it came to them.

Both the poll tax resistance campaign and the later Dublin water charge strikers used door-to-door surveys to good effect as well.

Example The British Women’s Suffrage Movement

In 1913, British women’s suffrage activist Marie Lawson launched what she called a “snowball” protest. It took the form of a chain letter in which she sent out letters that advocated tax resistance (and that protested on behalf of an imprisoned resister) and that asked the recipients to send the same letter “to at least three friends.”

Example U.S. Military Aid Foes

The United States approved a billion-dollar military aid package to the government of Colombia in 2000. In response, the president of the Mennonite Church of Colombia, Peter Stucky, and Ricardo Esquivia, the director of that church’s Justapaz organization and the coordinator of the Evangelical Council of Colombia’s Human Rights and Peace Commission, wrote a letter to their sister churches in the United States.

In that letter, they explained the disastrous consequences of fueling the civil war and the military wing of the war on drugs in Colombia. They also explained the church there was trying to respond more productively to the crisis. They called on American churches to do their part:

In reality, the government of the United States, using the taxpayers’ money, is supporting the Colombian government in what we consider to be a negative form. This means that the message arriving from the North to the Colombian people becomes a message of death and destruction. For that reason we are calling the churches in the North to redeem their taxes, on one hand by demanding that the U.S. government invests this money in life-producing projects, and on the other hand by redirecting part of their taxes toward a different project in your community or the world that promotes abundant and dignified life, as our Lord Jesus Christ has commanded us.

The American Mennonite Central Committee responded by urging taxpayers to redirect their taxes to the Mennonite-run “Taxes for Peace” fund, which was dedicated that year to peace-building efforts in Colombia.

Example Mennonites in World War I

This sort of advocacy can be dangerous. In 1918, R.W. Benner, an American Mennonite minister, got worried reports from members of his congregation who were being told in no uncertain terms that they would buy so-called “Liberty Bonds” to support the U.S. war effort, or they would answer for their refusal. Benner wrote for advice to his bishop, L.J. Heatwole, who responded by reiterating the position of the church: “Do not aid or abet war in any form… Contribute nothing to a fund that is used to run the war machine.” He noted:

In a number of places where brethren have refused to contribute to the different war funds, outlandish threats have been made and in a few cases have been put into execution—such as, tar and feathering, painting houses yellow, decorating autos and buildings with flags to test them out on their principles of nonresistance.

Heatwole urged his fellow-Mennonites to keep the faith and to embrace this sort of martyrdom like good Christians. Benner passed this message along to his flock. For this, both of them were criminally convicted under the Espionage Act.

(To give you some idea of the railroading involved, Heatwole did not learn that a guilty plea had been submitted on his behalf by “his” court-appointed attorney until after he appeared for the trial!)

Example Quakers

Letters, or “epistles,” from tax resisting Quakers to their fellow-Friends were an important way of promoting tax resistance in their Society.

In 1755 the Quaker-dominated Pennsylvania Assembly granted money in response to a request from the crown for funds to help England fight the Seven Years’ War (and its American theater: the French and Indian War). The Assembly decided to raise this money by taxing Pennsylvania colonists. American Quakers were of mixed opinions about a tax like this—since the tax was to fund a grant that was vaguely “for the King’s use” was it really a war tax that Quakers were obligated to resist, or might the money plausibly be spent on any of the kingdom’s expenses, in which case it should not bother a Quaker to “render unto Caesar”?

John Woolman, Anthony Benezet, and several other Quakers addressed a letter to other Friends in which they explained:

[B]eing painfully apprehensive that the large sum granted by the late Act of Assembly for the king’s use is principally intended for purposes inconsistent with our peaceable testimony, we therefore think that as we cannot be concerned in wars and fightings, so neither ought we to contribute thereto by paying the tax directed by the said Act, though suffering be the consequence of our refusal, which we hope to be enabled to bear with patience.

This letter put some meat on the bones of the Quaker peace testimony. It would no longer be sufficient to look at the form a tax took, or what the legislature chose to call it. Instead, a conscientious Quaker would need to ask with genuine curiosity to what ends the tax money would be spent and whether those ends were consistent with Quaker teachings.

Joseph Whitall reflected on how thoughtful letters like these helped him maintain his war tax resistance in times of doubt:

I read with singular satisfaction the piece which you lent me respecting taxes, as it was very strengthening to my mind, which before was somewhat encompassed with weakness on this account.… I have since felt much weakness, and had come to no solid conclusion of mind, until I read your little manuscript, which caused my heart to rejoice, under a feeling sense that it is the truth which leads those who walk and abide in it to hold forth this testimony unto the world. And oh, says my soul, that I may yield faithful obedience to its monitions, let what will be the consequence.

Lessons from the American War Tax Resistance Movement

A well-crafted and timely personal message can motivate anti-war activists to become war tax resisters. I’ve considered how the American war tax resistance movement might craft a more persuasive face-to-face recruitment message. Some of my conclusions would be valid for (or have analogies in) a variety of tax resistance campaigns.

As in sports, there’s an offensive game and a defensive game: Offense is knowing what message you want to convey, crafting it well, and deploying it effectively. Defense is anticipating questions, understanding the real concerns behind them, having good answers ready, and not getting thrown off-message.

Playing Offense

Consider three categories of motivations: needs, fears, and values. To motivate somebody to do something, show them how it will meet their needs (or not interfere with getting their needs met), protect them from something they fear (or not expose them to something frightening), and promote their values (or not require them to violate these values).

When the government tries to motivate taxpayers, it relies on fears and values. Fears of tax audits, criminal penalties, financial troubles, and so forth are important in shaping taxpayer compliance. But it turns out that values are even more important.

In 2012 the Internal Revenue Service Oversight Board surveyed American taxpayers, asking which factors were important to them when they decided whether to report their income and pay their taxes. 40% said that fear of an audit was a very important influence on this decision. But 86% said “personal integrity” was very important (only 4% said integrity was not very or not at all important).

Most American taxpayers pay taxes because they identify taxpaying with honesty, fairness, good citizenship, and their values as a whole.

War tax resisters offer another path to integrity. The more they speak about how their values motivate them to become tax resisters, the easier it is for people who share those values to imagine themselves as tax resisters.

But fears are also important. When the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee surveyed 1,106 anti-war activists who had never done tax resistance before, the #1 reason they gave for why they hadn’t was “Fear legal consequences.” Asked what they thought were the two most likely consequences of war tax resistance, 31.6% included jail time (which in reality is extremely rare). Asked what they needed most before they would consider resisting, the #1 answer was “Clear idea of likely consequences.”

People imagine the consequences of war tax resistance to be much more frightening than they really are. The war tax resistance movement should dispel this myth, not by saying “tax resistance is perfectly safe” but this:

There are many methods of war tax resistance, with different levels and types of risk.
You can learn the risks in advance and take steps to mitigate them.
If you take those steps the risks are much smaller than you might expect.
Hardly anyone goes to jail for war tax resistance.

War tax resisters can also appeal to needs. Anti-war activists commonly say they’re tired of going to rallies and marches—they would rather do something concrete that has a real, direct effect. Tax resistance meets this need.

Playing Defense

Some questions come up frequently when tax resistance is discussed. These also concern needs, fears, and values:

Is tax resistance effective? (needs): For instance: “Won’t the government just end up with more money after they add interest and penalties to what I refuse to pay?” or “How can one person’s refusal make a difference to the vast government budget?”
Is tax resistance safe? (fears): For instance: “Won’t they lock me up or take my home if I refuse taxes?” or “If activists resist taxes, won’t the government use this as an excuse to crack down on dissent?”
Is tax resistance ethical? (values): For instance: “Don’t we all need to pay our fair share?” or “Is it fair for me to decide on my own where a democracy spends my taxes?”

When you answer questions like these, address both the specific question or concern and the whole category it represents. For instance, you might answer a specific question about the ethics of tax resistance, and then add something about how your values led you to become a tax resister.

You can meet a question honestly in many ways. Sometimes, a direct answer is best. Other times, it’s better to put the question into a larger context or to address the assumptions behind the question. It can pay to practice meeting common questions in multiple ways.

With some questions the best policy is to change the subject. If you’re about to begin an answer that is likely to end with a defense of some particular political philosophy, what Jesus really meant, or the hidden truth about the JFK assassination—take a deep breath and start over.

For example, if someone asks, “do you think everybody should be able to decide on their own what their tax money can be spent on?” you could answer, “Yes: As a libertarian, I think a society in which people make their own decisions about how to spend their money would be a big improvement,” but pretty soon you’re defending libertarianism and not tax resistance, and maybe you’re giving the impression that tax resistance is only for people on the political fringe.

The question had a couple of purposes: The first was to express a concern about whether tax resistance is an ethical thing to do. The second is more subtle, but involves the questioner searching for an excuse not to become a tax resister. The questioner hopes to show that you hold some particular dogma (anarchism, pacifism, whatever), that adhering to this dogma is an essential part of being a tax resister, and that therefore the questioner doesn’t have to consider becoming a resister anymore since he or she doesn’t hold such views.

But you don’t have to cooperate. You could answer something like this instead: “Maybe so and maybe not, but the war tax resisters I know spend their money more fairly and wisely than the government does. If war tax resisters were budgeting more money and Congress less, we’d all breathe easier. By taking responsibility for how my money is spent, I make sure the government doesn’t spend it irresponsibly.”

Comparisons are one good way to put things into context:

“As protesters we may be willing to risk arrest in sit-ins and blockades, or to risk jail time and fines for civil disobedience. Why should we think the much smaller risks of tax resistance are so scary?”
“People will pay double-digit interest on their credit cards to buy Christmas presents. I think I can risk a few percentage points of interest and penalties for what I think is right.”
“We want politicians to take political risks by cutting off funding for the war. I want to show that I’m willing to take risks to cut off my funding too.”

When you play defense, look for opportunities to get back on offense—especially when you’re trying to get your message out through the news media. On such occasions, don’t be afraid to take charge. Put your message front-and-center. Help meet the reporter’s needs with pithy, well-practiced sound bites. If it’s a telephone interview, write some key phrases down ahead of time so you can be ready when the right moment comes.

War tax resistance is what frustrated anti-war activists need—they just don’t know it yet. If war tax resisters can convey their message convincingly, the war tax resistance movement will grow and the anti-war movement will become more effective.

Notes and Citations

Burns, Danny Poll Tax Rebellion AK Press (1992), pp. 57, 59, 63
Burns, Danny “Bristol and Avon—the story so far” 3D #1 (c. November 1989) p. 3
“A ‘Snowball’ Protest” The Vote 5 September 1913, p. 305
Stucky, Peter & Esquivia, Ricardo “A Call from the Colombian Churches to the Churches in the North in Response to Bill Clinton’s Visit to Our Country” Turning toward peace: Dollars and Letters for Colombia 10 September 2000
Hartzler, J.S. Mennonites in the World War: Non-Resistance Under Test (1922) chapter XII
Woolman, John “An Epistle of Tender Love and Caution” American Quaker War Tax Resistance, 2nd. ed. (2011) pp. 69–71
Whitall, Joseph “Hold Forth This Testimony” American Quaker War Tax Resistance, 2nd. ed. (2011), pp. 217–18
“2012 Taxpayer Attitude Survey” IRS Oversight Board, February 2013, p. 14
“Tabulated Results—War Opponents who have Never Done WTR” (NWTRCC website)