Effects of illegal acts by protestors

George Floyd protestors

Really? By any means necessary?

Let's hope not

Parts of the far left have gone so far in the political circle that they are now all but indistinguishable from the far right. ....  When there are people who espouse [major crimes including murder and bombings] .... then we are dealing with people who are merely hiding psychosis behind a political mask. The masses of people recoil in horror and say, "Our way is bad and we were willing to let it change, but certainly not for this murderous madness--no matter how bad things are now, they are better than that." So they begin to turn back. They regress into acceptance of a coming massive repression in the name of "law and order." -- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals, 1971

Most illegal acts in otherwise lawful protests are either attacks on other people or property destruction. The latter is not as serious as physical assault of a person. The law generally does not treat the two as equivalent, with assault or attack on a person generally being a more serious infraction. If the amount of property damage is too high, the crime can elevate from a misdemeanor to a felony. The laws vary from state to state.

Breaking a window in a protest arguably is a form of speech. It is illegal speech, but speech nonetheless. It's sort of like flag burning. That is protected speech, but arguably stupid, inarticulate, usually counter productive speech. A question one can ask is exactly what does the act of breaking a window convey? Say there's a peaceful, legal protest with hundreds of people protesting unwarranted-unacceptable police use of force, but a few bored local hooligans join in for kicks. The most common crime perpetrators in such protests actually are bored local hooligans. There's some empirical data indicating that most of the lawbreaking is not by Antifa or leftist radicals, but instead is by by bored locals, usually young men.

So, the bored hooligans throw some rocks and break windows causing about $10,000 in damage. What social value was in what those perpetrators did? What they did was (1) tarnish, undermine and discredit both the cause and the peaceful protestors themselves, and (2) provide ammunition for propagandists who then gleefully go on to smear the entire protest movement against unwarranted police acts and in the process convince millions of Americans that all the protestors are violent criminal socialists. That's what the illegal act (speech) of some bored hooligans have actually done in the real world since George Floyd was murdered.

But do the analysis differently. Change the hypothetical (which I believe is the actual dominant reality) to one where a few of the peaceful protestors lose control and break windows causing about $10,000 in damage. What was the social value of that lawbreaking? Specifically, what did their speech or behavior do? It did even more damage than what the hooligans did in the first hypothetical. Some of the lawbreakers actually were peaceful protestors until they lost control of their emotions and behaviors. That kernel of truth adds to the power of the propaganda that smears all the protestors as violent criminal socialists who propagandists excitedly portray as major threats to law and order everywhere.

In response to the massive threat the violent criminal socialists are portrayed as being, republicans in 35 states are writing or have passed laws making lawbreaking in otherwise legal protests more serious offenses. In at least one state, a law protects a person in a car who runs down and kills protestors illegally blocking a street.[1] That's right -- under the right circumstances you can use your car to kill protestors who are blocking a street. (it's an honor culture mentality thing that's akin to stand your ground laws that protect a killer who was merely standing their ground and felt threatened by someone) That is part of the authoritarian propaganda-fueled backlash that breaking windows, committing arson and looting during otherwise peaceful protests is unleashing on American society.

That's why one can argue that all lawbreaking by anyone should be prosecuted in all otherwise peaceful legal protests.

Peaceful legal protests. That raises another question. What about illegal protests? What then? Well, if a protest is illegal from the get go, all the people can be smeared as violent criminal socialists and exuberantly portrayed as major threats to law and order. What if the states pass laws that simply neuter protesting by requiring the protests to occur in places and times that render the protest less effective? Then what?

Questions: Does what Saul Alinsky wrote in 1971 about far left radicalism apply at least somewhat to how street protests about police brutality are being treated in 2020 and 2021? Although breaking windows and looting stores are not the same crimes as assassinations and bombings, are there parallels in how society is reacting, e.g., by passing laws that clamp down on street protest illegality in the name of law and order?

Footnote: 

1. Vox writes: 

The most recent example of such a law came Wednesday, when Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed a new law that effectively allows drivers to hit people with a car in a specific set of circumstances.

Under the new law, an Oklahoma driver will no longer be liable for striking — or even killing — a person if the driver is “fleeing from a riot ... under a reasonable belief that fleeing was necessary to protect the motor vehicle operator from serious injury or death.”

That raises questions. What is a riot? Someone breaking windows in an otherwise peaceful protest? What is a reasonable belief? For example, a Proud Boy wants to kill some George Floyd protesters, so he drives gently into a crowd and some protesters bang on his car with their fists because he is being an asshole. So he then responds by hitting the accelerator and mows a bunch of 'em down, killing two people and grievously injuring three. Later he claims he had a reasonable belief that fleeing was necessary to protect himself from serious injury or death, he walks free and goes on to regale his Proud Boy friends with what good clean fun he had at the protest.

So many questions. So much social animosity and hate. So many far right haters willing to kill. But what about far left haters? Can they gently drive into a crowd at a rally for the ex-president and do the same God-awful thing?

Opinion Poll

Question 1: On a scale of 1-10, where 1 is lowest and 10 is highest, overall, how do you rate President Joe Biden’s first 100 days in office?

Question 2: What issues are most important to you?

Question 3: What issues are least important to you?

Question 4: What hasn’t happened yet that you’d like to see happen?

 

Thanks for posting and recommending.

How serious is the threat to democracy from liberalism and/or leftist extremism?

Fear of the extremist left, socialist tyranny and more equal distribution of wealth are major drivers of rank and file support for radical right politics and tactics. Democrats, democratic socialists, progressives, political correctness, BLM and Antifa (collectively the 'bad people'[1]) have been vilified for years as threats that are close to or worse than terrorist violence. In the case of democrats and democratic socialists, the vilification has gone on for decades.

Exactly how serious is the threat of tyranny from the bad people? What is the level of threat right now? Does it compare to the threat from the radical right GOP, which mostly supports the 1/6 coup attempt, or rationalizes it into insignificance, and falsely believes the election was stolen?

Some or maybe most conservatives point to Portland and the damage that leftist, BML and Antifa protests have inflicted on that city as evidence of a dire threat to democracy and civil liberties. Is the threat of illegality in street protests a serious threat? Most cities in the US have experiences little or no damage and few street protests. Most of the protestors have been peaceful, but all are tarred as rioters when some thugs join in and start breaking laws. One source asserted that 93% of BLM protests have been peaceful. Not all of the protestors in the non-peaceful 7% were law breakers, but presumably were present at least part of the time that thugs were breaking laws. 

A New York Times article indicates that downtown Portland has suffered significant damage and the city is going to be more aggressive in going after thugs who break laws. The NYT writes:

“Portland was a beautiful city,” said Ms. Carter, who was the first Black woman elected to the Oregon Legislative Assembly and is now retired. “Now you walk around and see all the graffiti, buildings being boarded up. I get sick to my stomach. And I get angry.”

After almost a year of near-continuous protests since the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Portland’s city leaders are signaling that it may be time for a more aggressive crackdown on the most strident street actions.

Mayor Ted Wheeler, himself a target of many of the protests as he oversaw a police department that has repeatedly turned to aggressive tactics, last week put into place a state of emergency that lasted six days and vowed to “unmask” those demonstrators who engaged in repeated acts of vandalism or arson, saying it was time to “hurt them a little bit.”

The crowds the city has seen are often made up of amorphous groups of people who come for different reasons. Chris Davis, the deputy police chief, estimated there were 150 to 200 people among the regular protesters who were prone to engage in property destruction, although the demonstrations often feature smaller numbers.

Some liberal residents of Portland decry an effort to clamp down on the protestors. One complained that protesting activists were focused on saving lives from unwarranted police violence, while city leaders were focused on saving windows. That argument ignores the fact that the city and many Portland residents want the law breaking and window smashing stopped. Public opinion in Portland is not uniform.

The Washington Post writes:

In short, our data suggest that 96.3 percent of events involved no property damage or police injuries, and in 97.7 percent of events, no injuries were reported among participants, bystanders or police. These figures should correct the narrative that the protests were overtaken by rioting and vandalism or violence. Such claims are false.

 
The Black Lives Matter uprisings were remarkably nonviolent. 

When there was violence, very often police or counter protesters were reportedly directing it at the protesters. When the Department of Homeland Security released its Homeland Threat Assessment earlier this month, it emphasized that self-proclaimed white supremacist groups are the most dangerous threat to U.S. security. But the report misleadingly added that there had been “over 100 days of violence and destruction in our cities,” referring to the anti-racism uprisings of this past summer.

Meanwhile, a man in Minneapolis accused of arson to a police station during a protest has been fined $12 million and sentenced to 4 years in prison. How many republicans in congress have been fined and sentenced for their role is supporting the 1/6 coup attempt? At least some possibly leftist law breaking street rioters (blue collar thugs) get caught and whacked for their law breaking in protests. Elite republican traitors (white collar thugs) do not face legal repercussions for their protest-related crimes, but maybe some rank and file conservative traitors and thugs just might face some heat from the law. Maybe. 

Other arguments that leftists are just as dangerous or more dangerous than conservatives include:

1. Bad people control universities and they propagandize and brainwash students to believe in socialism and tyranny

2. Bad people want to take away all guns in private hands

3. Bad people want to get rid of Christmas and ban religion

4. Bad people want to limit the influence of Christianity in government

5. Bad people support same-sex marriage 

Other conservative terrors include allegations that liberals believe in government action to get more equal opportunity for all. That argument usually but falsely asserts that wanting equal opportunity necessarily means that obliterates personal responsibility. 

Another terror is that democrats want universal health care, which conservatives see as evil socialism and the path to poor health care for all. That argument ignores the fact that tens of millions of Americans have no access to health care unless they wind up in an emergency room. And then, many or most of them cannot afford it. The American capitalist, for-profit model of healthcare is complex, more costly than any other system on Earth and far less accessible to millions than those evil socialist universal health care systems that people in most those countries generally like.

Another conservative terror is that liberal policies emphasize a need for government to help solve people's problems, arguing that individuals can and must stand up for themselves. That argument ignores the fact that individuals usually cannot stand up to big companies without at least some law that protects them. Usually, government can do far more than an individual in defense of individual's rights.

Another conservative terror is that regulations amount to tyranny. That argument ignores the fact that nearly all conservative deregulation in recent decades shifted power from government to usually powerful special interests. Not all regulations are unnecessary as conservatives usually seem to imply. Deregulation does not necessarily flow power to individuals from government. In fact, power to sue special interests has been relentlessly attacked by conservatives, e.g., the option for class action suits by consumers have been cut back significantly over the years. 

Another conservative terror hold that most or all taxation is theft. That mindset mostly drives what is now a tax cheating (tax gap) epidemic that (1) amounts to about ~$1 trillion to ~$1.4 trillion/year, and (2) has probably cost the US treasury about ~$8-10 trillion since 2000 and will likely cost another ~$7-10 trillion by 2030.

Can a person reasonably argue that if the threat to democracy, the rule of law and social well-being from liberals and their politics and policy choices is X, the threat from conservatives is ~20-50X? Or, is there rough parity and both are about the same, as some people argue based on liberal adoption of neoliberalism after abandoning real liberalism? Or are liberals ~20-50X more threatening than conservatives and their politics and policy choices?

Does individual liberty expand when power flows from government to special interests? Or, does no deregulation ever shift power from government to special interests and power always flows to individuals from government?

Footnote added after posting the OP: 

1. I intentionally chose the label "bad people" for democrats, liberals and progressives after listening to part of a C-Span broadcast in a series that discusses books. The book author was the radical right Christian Nationalist Ken Starr promoting his book. The broadcast was hosted by a Christian group that desperately fights against what it sees as ferocious, deadly persecution of helpless, innocent Christians in America. The host referred to the "liberal judge" in his dissent in a Supreme Court decision as one of the bad guys. The dissent actually fundamentally sided with the Christians. 

Bad people. That is exactly how probably most elite Christian Nationalists see and think of people who oppose their Christian theocratic agenda. I suspect it is also how most rank and file socially conservative Christians see the same people. That is how toxic American Christianity has become in the last century or so. 

A Dwindling Republican Party May Be Doomed to Shrink More

From Gallup comes news that its regular polling on party affiliation shows the largest quarterly gap in major party affiliation since 2012, with 49 percent of U.S. adults identifying themselves as either Democrats (30 percent) or as Democratic-leaning independents (19 percent), while 40 percent call themselves Republicans (25 percent) or Republican-leaning independents (15 percent).

That in itself is not good news for the GOP, though it has managed to stay relatively competitive despite persistently trailing Democrats in party affiliation. As Gallup notes:

Republican advantages have generally been rare and short-lived, but occurred when Americans rallied around incumbent Republican presidents George H.W. Bush after the 1991 U.S. victory in the Gulf War and George W. Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The GOP also had brief leads in party affiliation in the periods surrounding Republican electoral successes in the 1994, 2010 and 2014 midterm elections.

The bigger problem with a relatively small and slightly shrinking party that has just lost a national election is that the kind of revisions in message and leadership such parties sometimes need to expand their appeal may be more difficult to secure when its membership is limited to its “base.” As I noted recently (playing off an excellent piece from Perry Bacon Jr.), there are a host of reasons the post-2020 Republican Party is disinclined to rethink its “brand” or even conduct an after-action review on its loss of the White House and both houses of Congress over the last four years. But a probable contributing factor on the margins is the fact that once swing voters are deducted from the GOP ranks, the remaining party members are more likely to hail from a party base that is completely complacent about the status quo ante. To put it more directly, a party membership increasingly dominated by MAGA bravos is going to be less likely to take off the red hats and look for a leader other than the 45th president.

And that is why “rebranding” and “autopsy” exercises most matter: When political parties are licking their wounds, their membership can be motivated to look beyond immediate views and reimagine a broader coalition. But if they are waving the bloody shirt of an alleged “stolen election” and find bitter and exclusive partisanship to be their most effective unifying glue, a reevaluation will be the last thing on their minds. That may be where the GOP is right now.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/04/fewer-americans-identify-as-republican-in-2021-gallup.html