Tom Brown was talking about them quite a lot yesterday. He felt that Hillary should come forward and criticize them.
I wasn't sure that it was so vital, but in the end she did just this.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/clinton-trump-rally-violence-223885
Bernie also did as did the MSNBC commentators. So no one can try to say that 'both sides are equally guilty.'
I certainly don't believe violent protesting is either effective or the right thing to do.
However, this morning I've come across some who argue that the case against violent protesters is not so clear cut.
"An outbreak of violence at a rally for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in San Jose, California on Thursday touched off arguments about utility, legality, and moral rightness of political violence. My colleague Conor Friedersdorf argues that anti-Trump protesters should be “arrested, prosecuted, jailed, and broadly condemned” for their attacks, and his prescription to uphold our “civic responsibility to reject political violence” is for protesters to be peaceful, patient, and rise above the fray."
"That might work in theory, but what happens when the fray consumes the system? The message inherent to nonviolence is that peaceful democratic institutions are better routes for protest than violence, both morally and practically. So far, however, democratic institutions have not stopped the rise of Trump, who has become the presidential nominee of a party that has been a pillar of America’s democratic institutions for over 160 years. That would not be as dire a dilemma for protesters if they simply found Trump personally objectionable. But his platform undermines the rights of millions, from early proposals to ban Muslims from entering the country to a potential repeal of birthright citizenship. Why should the people who he proposes to victimize and marginalize trust democratic institutions to protect them from Trump, when those very systems have delivered him the nomination and could soon see him to the White House?"
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/violence-trump-rallies/485522/?utm_source=atltw
I have a few reactions to this.
1. It is true that Trump is running on a platform to take away the democratic rights of millions of people. In my last post I myself stated that Trump is essentially running on a promise to return us to pre 1964 thinking on civil rights.
He is opposed to immigration for nonwhite people and when he talks about political correctness, it turns out that what he means is simply laws against discrimination.
He has stated that he will only choose a white male VP and that any nonwhite male has a conflict of interest in his Trump U case.
He fundamentally rejects the American conception of citizenship for an older European conception based on blood and who your family is.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/06/is-trumps-german-heritage-conflict-of.html
Again, I don't like the idea of political violence either. But think about it this way: what happens if Trump wins?
Do we all simply recognize him as the legitimate President then? Even if he starts breaking laws left and right, cracking down on journalists, minorities, etc?
Michael Hayden, the former director of the CIA-as far as you can get from a young, hotheaded protester-has already said that there are some orders that Trump might make, that the CIA and the military would refuse to obey.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/28/former-cia-director-military-may-refuse-to-follow-trumps-orders-if-he-becomes-president/
"For many anti-Trump protesters––who may be of Mexican descent––this man who calls Mexican immigrants rapists and threatens the ability of those immigrants to feed their families is not some faceless bigot, but an existential threat. Although he has recently backed away from some of the more controversial human-rights violations in his platform, Trump’s recent racist attacks against Judge Gonzalo Curiel illustrate that bigotry is his primary mode. A justified fear of Trump does not justify violence against an individual just trying to leave a rally. But any prescription for ending political violence must deal with the fact that Trump directs and wields violence, often through his supporters, in ways that upend peaceful means of political discourse."
"Again, this contemplation of Trumpian violence does not absolve a person who throws eggs from the consequences of that act. But it does counter the idea, expressed by Conor, that political violence can be conquered if one side rises above the fray and refuses to engage. It counters the objectionable creep of respectability politics, that has led some to call on peaceful protesters to abandon Mexican flags so as to not provide ammunition for Trump’s nativist narrative. For decades, people have used a watered-down formulation of Martin Luther King Jr.’s nonviolence to uniquely burden the powerless with the task of maintaining peace against violent powerful actors. But even Kingian nonviolence was a strategy that itself acknowledged a certain utility in violence; a utility that it rejected, but a utility nonetheless. Moreover, Kingian nonviolence prescribed civil disobedience––mass lawbreaking––as a way to circumvent the uselessness of state-sponsored systems of discourse and to question their legitimacy. Would those who propose nonviolence also commit to supporting massive, disruptive acts of civil disobedience?"
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/violence-trump-rallies/485522/?utm_source=atltw
What is that utility of violence exactly? How useful was this guy's antics.
https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/738863535808229377
On the one hand, I think the only way to deal with Trump is to vote for Hilary Clinton.
On the other hand, if Trump were to win, what then? Michael Hayden talks about disobeying him. Some have gone to the opposite extreme like Shadi Hamid and said that if Trump wins he will be 'our President.'
https://twitter.com/itsnoony/status/738820626224320512
Ironically, Hamid's post was in the Atlantic just like Newkirk's.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/05/trump-president-illiberal-democracy/481494/
So we have three different degrees of response to Trump.
I wasn't sure that it was so vital, but in the end she did just this.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/clinton-trump-rally-violence-223885
Bernie also did as did the MSNBC commentators. So no one can try to say that 'both sides are equally guilty.'
I certainly don't believe violent protesting is either effective or the right thing to do.
However, this morning I've come across some who argue that the case against violent protesters is not so clear cut.
"An outbreak of violence at a rally for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in San Jose, California on Thursday touched off arguments about utility, legality, and moral rightness of political violence. My colleague Conor Friedersdorf argues that anti-Trump protesters should be “arrested, prosecuted, jailed, and broadly condemned” for their attacks, and his prescription to uphold our “civic responsibility to reject political violence” is for protesters to be peaceful, patient, and rise above the fray."
"That might work in theory, but what happens when the fray consumes the system? The message inherent to nonviolence is that peaceful democratic institutions are better routes for protest than violence, both morally and practically. So far, however, democratic institutions have not stopped the rise of Trump, who has become the presidential nominee of a party that has been a pillar of America’s democratic institutions for over 160 years. That would not be as dire a dilemma for protesters if they simply found Trump personally objectionable. But his platform undermines the rights of millions, from early proposals to ban Muslims from entering the country to a potential repeal of birthright citizenship. Why should the people who he proposes to victimize and marginalize trust democratic institutions to protect them from Trump, when those very systems have delivered him the nomination and could soon see him to the White House?"
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/violence-trump-rallies/485522/?utm_source=atltw
I have a few reactions to this.
1. It is true that Trump is running on a platform to take away the democratic rights of millions of people. In my last post I myself stated that Trump is essentially running on a promise to return us to pre 1964 thinking on civil rights.
He is opposed to immigration for nonwhite people and when he talks about political correctness, it turns out that what he means is simply laws against discrimination.
He has stated that he will only choose a white male VP and that any nonwhite male has a conflict of interest in his Trump U case.
He fundamentally rejects the American conception of citizenship for an older European conception based on blood and who your family is.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/06/is-trumps-german-heritage-conflict-of.html
Again, I don't like the idea of political violence either. But think about it this way: what happens if Trump wins?
Do we all simply recognize him as the legitimate President then? Even if he starts breaking laws left and right, cracking down on journalists, minorities, etc?
Michael Hayden, the former director of the CIA-as far as you can get from a young, hotheaded protester-has already said that there are some orders that Trump might make, that the CIA and the military would refuse to obey.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/28/former-cia-director-military-may-refuse-to-follow-trumps-orders-if-he-becomes-president/
So the big difference between Hayden and Vann R. Newkirk III, the writer of the Atlantic piece who asks what the protesters are supposed to do is Hayden is talking about breaking out of democratic patterns after Trump is elected, the protesters are doing this before.
2. On the other hand, the kinds of people that engage in violent protests are the last ones who will probably vote. If you say democratic voting doesn't work, the next question is did you vote yourself?
If not then you're part of the problem.
3. Let's turn Newkirk's question around: where is the evidence that violence works for the underprivileged? These sorts of tactics usually lead to martial law or at least a more repressive regime.
What gives protest movements what ever power they have is always moral. Without that, they can't win, full stop.
More Newkirk:
"Again, this contemplation of Trumpian violence does not absolve a person who throws eggs from the consequences of that act. But it does counter the idea, expressed by Conor, that political violence can be conquered if one side rises above the fray and refuses to engage. It counters the objectionable creep of respectability politics, that has led some to call on peaceful protesters to abandon Mexican flags so as to not provide ammunition for Trump’s nativist narrative. For decades, people have used a watered-down formulation of Martin Luther King Jr.’s nonviolence to uniquely burden the powerless with the task of maintaining peace against violent powerful actors. But even Kingian nonviolence was a strategy that itself acknowledged a certain utility in violence; a utility that it rejected, but a utility nonetheless. Moreover, Kingian nonviolence prescribed civil disobedience––mass lawbreaking––as a way to circumvent the uselessness of state-sponsored systems of discourse and to question their legitimacy. Would those who propose nonviolence also commit to supporting massive, disruptive acts of civil disobedience?"
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/violence-trump-rallies/485522/?utm_source=atltw
What is that utility of violence exactly? How useful was this guy's antics.
https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/738863535808229377
On the one hand, I think the only way to deal with Trump is to vote for Hilary Clinton.
On the other hand, if Trump were to win, what then? Michael Hayden talks about disobeying him. Some have gone to the opposite extreme like Shadi Hamid and said that if Trump wins he will be 'our President.'
https://twitter.com/itsnoony/status/738820626224320512
Ironically, Hamid's post was in the Atlantic just like Newkirk's.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/05/trump-president-illiberal-democracy/481494/
So we have three different degrees of response to Trump.
1. Those who engage in political violence now.
2. Those who engage in democratic politics now but if they fail-Trump wins-would engage in political violence later. That includes the former director of the CIA and probably includes me.
When I say 'political violence' this doesn't only mean literal violence it means stepping outside the rule of law in some way. Just to be clear-I don't mean I plan to kill anyone. LOL.
Though in all seriousness, if you do step outside the rule of law, literal violence can ensue.
3. Those like Shadi Hamid who say even if Trump wins we have to continue to play by the rules even if Trump himself breaks them on a huge scale.
One answer to Shadi Hamid is that if being elected always confers legitimacy then he wouldn't even have been able to resist Hitler in 1933 once he won a free and fair democratic election.
More Newkirk
"Nonviolence becomes a cudgel against the oppressed when violent people in power require those without power to adopt it as the sole way of reacting to violence. And the oppression that many people fear from Trump is real and present. The word “fascist” is now regularly applied to Donald Trump—not just by liberals, but by his conservative critics. That suggestion, even if it proves hyperbolic, should chill anyone seriously dedicated to freedom, especially those who already live on the margins of America. Violence is not the answer to that chill. But democracy and nonviolence don’t seem to be working too well, either."
"The way to restore peace is not just to condemn protesters, but to restore faith in the efficacy of democratic institutions—to show that violence and bigotry won’t be tolerated. If more of those who rushed to condemn the protesters in San Jose had been equally vocal earlier in the cycle, when violence first flared at Trump rallies, it might not have become so widespread. Or perhaps, even earlier, when Trump began his campaign of rhetorical violence that spawned the physical violence of his rallies."
Of course, in a violent battle there is no way to assume that right wins over might. The opposite seems much more likely.
2. Those who engage in democratic politics now but if they fail-Trump wins-would engage in political violence later. That includes the former director of the CIA and probably includes me.
When I say 'political violence' this doesn't only mean literal violence it means stepping outside the rule of law in some way. Just to be clear-I don't mean I plan to kill anyone. LOL.
Though in all seriousness, if you do step outside the rule of law, literal violence can ensue.
3. Those like Shadi Hamid who say even if Trump wins we have to continue to play by the rules even if Trump himself breaks them on a huge scale.
One answer to Shadi Hamid is that if being elected always confers legitimacy then he wouldn't even have been able to resist Hitler in 1933 once he won a free and fair democratic election.
More Newkirk
"Nonviolence becomes a cudgel against the oppressed when violent people in power require those without power to adopt it as the sole way of reacting to violence. And the oppression that many people fear from Trump is real and present. The word “fascist” is now regularly applied to Donald Trump—not just by liberals, but by his conservative critics. That suggestion, even if it proves hyperbolic, should chill anyone seriously dedicated to freedom, especially those who already live on the margins of America. Violence is not the answer to that chill. But democracy and nonviolence don’t seem to be working too well, either."
"The way to restore peace is not just to condemn protesters, but to restore faith in the efficacy of democratic institutions—to show that violence and bigotry won’t be tolerated. If more of those who rushed to condemn the protesters in San Jose had been equally vocal earlier in the cycle, when violence first flared at Trump rallies, it might not have become so widespread. Or perhaps, even earlier, when Trump began his campaign of rhetorical violence that spawned the physical violence of his rallies."
Of course, in a violent battle there is no way to assume that right wins over might. The opposite seems much more likely.
I don't see any real evidence that political violence is of great utility to those with little power.
I think Jamelle Bouie gets it right.
I think Jamelle Bouie gets it right.
"How Should America Resist a Fascist?
Violence won’t help—not while there are still legitimate means of stopping Donald Trump.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/how_should_america_resist_a_fascist.html
As this is already a pretty long piece I will look more at his argument, in the next post.
Violence won’t help—not while there are still legitimate means of stopping Donald Trump.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/how_should_america_resist_a_fascist.html
As this is already a pretty long piece I will look more at his argument, in the next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment