Archives for posts with tag: protest

When the political violence started, last summer, the media tried hard hard hard to pin it on Donald Trump. He incited it, you see.

Further, Trump’s willingness to defend those who would punch the interlopers and bullies (called, euphemistically, “protestors”) who infiltrated Trump rallies was seen as an excuse for the “protests” and their latent violence, crazed outbursts, and constant obstructionism. Tackling a Trumpeter(In the photo at right, taken from DrHurd.com, of a self-described Black Muslim tackling a white Trump supporter, we see a fine — and, in this case, not gruesome — example of the violence.)

So . . . one thing happened and two things didn’t.

Trump and his followers backed away from some of their rhetoric and violent responses. Meanwhile the protestors manqué did not let up — their tactics did not really change.

The other thing that didn’t happen? Trumpsters, conservatives, and libertarians didn’t make a big show of protesting, much less derailing and obstructing, Bernie and Hillary rallies.

So what we have is an overwhelming amount of invasion and violence perpetrated generally by the “left” against what is seen as the “right.”

Dr. Hurd Dr. Michael Hurd asks the obvious question: “Why Violence Against Trump Supporters, But Not Sanders/Clinton Supporters?” The doctor concludes what many of us have been saying all along: it is no surprise. Leftism is the channeling of violence in the adoration of the State in its many massive (and allegedly messianic) social intrusions. It is entirely fitting for a subset of the left to turn violent. They are just doing what comes naturally, given their pro-force, pro-coercion, pro-violence beliefs.

Further, this has been the case for centuries. Socialism has long been associated with violence on its behalf. Hence the talk of “revolution,” few of which are bloodless.

To conclude, I give it over to the doctor: “The initiation of violence at the Donald Trump rallies foreshadows the force to come when socialism — an ideology of force — continues to gain ground in what was once the land of individual liberty, private property, freedom of association and freedom of speech.”

In the immortal words of “motorist” Rodney King, “can we all get along?”

As a sort of crazed anger spreads throughout America, two things seem obvious to me:

  1. The police do often over-react, too often with gross injustice.
  2. Suspects and innocent bystanders aren’t exactly proving themselves to be calm, level-headed, and virtuous in the face of police over-reaction.

It’s hard to keep one’s head — one’s “cool” — when others lose theirs. And, sure, we hire police to keep cool, sticking to procedure when violence or some other conflict breaks out to upset the normal peace of society.

But I speak to the kids out there, the youngsters, especially those who think they are being treated unjustly: even when the police are wrong, very rarely does it make sense to defy them. Prudence (as distinguished from justice) most of the time requires us to

  • be polite (show respect);
  • calm down (demonstrate restraint yourself);
  • articulate information helpful to sorting out the situation, whatever that is;
  • comply with explicit demands unless those demands are sure to kill you; and (most of all)
  • remember that police have been authorized to use force — the “police power” — and have a great deal of license and leeway.

Yes, power corrupts. Police are not excepted from this. But we (the less empowered, the until-proven-otherwise innocent) citizens must remember that they do have a tough job, resolving conflict day in and out, and we must always signal to the police our willingness to be peaceful. Even if we are in the right, losing our tempers (our “cools”) demonstrates belligerence, as far as the police are concerned, which elicits negative reactions.

Police abuse of power is no excuse for citizen unruliness. When the police are unjust, the best recourse is court — not the chalk outline of your body.