Posturing for 2028. Can you imagine the MAGA slate ? Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, Mike Pompeo, Vivek Ramaswamy, Ron DeSantis, Gregg Abbott ; the slime mold spreads.
Dialogues from folks like Cotton are similar to those from TFG in the months leading up to the 1/6 insurrection. Cotton’s comments may not advocate specific directed actions, but they do lend themselves to giving implied permission to act to the cadres of folks who have already talked themselves into their respective belief systems about committing violent acts. Sadly, our Constitutionally mandated legal system can only act once actual violent acts have occurred. It’s not clear to me that domestic monitoring and warnings of impending violent actions are permitted in the US like those issued to the Russian government in advance of the recent tragic events there.
But, if TFG is reelected, all bets are off and a violent mentality like was seen in The Purge could follow Cotton’s and other’s implied permissions.
Cotton knows that there is one class of people truly protected in their protests. This sniveling chickenhawk (himself a stolen valor aficionado) knows that the rightwing media human centipede will carry his bloodlust uncritically. After all, because if the protestors are purportedly liberals, it means they don't count as humans.
Just imagine the hew and cry if an elected Democrat suggested opening fire on the right wing anti-government protests. Imagine how there would be widespread condemnation from the so-called MSM and almost every pundit.
But ah, the rules are not the same as the parties are not the same.
Every day, there is a gem in your writing that makes me smile AND distills some aspect of the discussion into an easily-grasped truth. Today, it's "...in reality, all they achieved was annoying strangers and hardening normal people to their cause." Thank you!
Maybe in the interest of a "some day" reunification of our country (which, I continue to hope, is not broken, but simply unfinished) it is heartening that on both the left and the right there are too many people wedded to something more like performance than persuasion...I just don't think so.
Cotton and his "let's make sure government accomplishes nothing, so the people know we have our underwear in a twist" cronies are really a lot more like the Golden Gate protesters than I think they would be comfortable with, if they ever developed the self-awareness of a planaria.
The comparison to MLK's principled and much more effective "theory" of protest is very relevant. Building coalitions, wooing allies, exposing injustice and educating people all take time. But they have some chance of bringing enough people around to your way of thinking to make real change.
What the "MLK made GOOD TROUBLE" fools keep getting wrong is that protest is not just about getting attention for your cause, it's about persuasion. MLK did have to technically break the law sometimes, but this was more in the vein of "not getting a permit that the local authorities refused to give him because they didn't like what he was saying" rather than "scream at passers-by". The bus boycott is an excellent example--no one was prevented from using the buses, but the bus company was deprived of the fares of black and allied riders (which made them eventually fold). MLK's efforts didn't just get attention, they convinced a lot of people who otherwise didn't have strong feelings about (or even didn't think about) civil rights to care about his cause, bringing enough pressure on policymakers to pass legislation, etc.
What Cotton gets wrong is that when you react to a protest with undue violence, you're going to create more sympathy for the protesters (like Bull Connor learned when reacting to civil rights protests--a big contrast to other pols who just let them march peacefully).
The Selma-to-Montgomery march blocked traffic the whole way.
I am so very tired of people throwing his name around who only want to talk about the nonviolent part, but not the protest part. Or the fact that at the time he angered and annoyed a lot of people. He was assassinated, for goodness sake.
Sitting at lunch counters annoyed the hell out of the white people who did not want them there.
These protests are escalating because the government is not acting. It's the same with climate protests. I think we should be a lot more worried about *losing the right* to protest than the protestors.
There is a fundamental difference between marching to register to vote and blocking traffic *for the purpose of blocking traffic.* As I said, the latter turns protest into violent coercion (and it doesn’t work)
Yes, racists were annoyed when Black people tried to eat in a restaurant but fence-sitting moderates were likely to think getting beat up for ordering a cheeseburger goes a bit far. There is no evidence that fence-sitting moderates are moved by protestors blocking traffic.
If your tactics are not working and are likely to get people killed down the line, I would advise reconsidering.
"A 1961 Gallup poll found that 61 percent of people disapproved of the Freedom Riders, a group of white and black activists who traveled together on buses and trains to protest segregation. The same poll found 57 percent thought demonstrations such as sit-ins at lunch counters would hurt African Americans’ chances of being integrated in the South."
I'll also just say that if you're blocking traffic, you're blocking traffic. The purpose would not seem to matter to the person being blocked. But whatever; cars block
I imagine if George Wallace announced "you're blocking traffic, leave a lane open" MLK wouldn't have been like "oh yeah, MAKE US, LOLZ". Like you say, that wasn't about "let's make Alabama drivers suffer" but rather "we are marching to register to vote".
The ancillary negative effects or disruptions to daily lives weren’t the whole point. Also, King’s civil disobedience was never about the ancillary negative effects. People look terrible dumping food over the heads of Black people just trying to eat. I don’t think people blocking traffic will look great in photos down the line.
As I said in my post, people are welcome to disagree and pursue tactics I think are counter productive. But after a point, they might want to at least acknowledge that the strategy is not working. It’s the equivalent of Wile E. Coyote continuing to buy Acme products.
Yeah that American economy is also feeding people, running hospitals, a lot more than just "paying for the genocide"--as if Israel would have to stop doing what they're doing because a road in San Francisco gets blocked.
Disrupting the American economy screws the most vulnerable the most -- especially now when it’s more likely that anyone doing a traditional commute is working class. Lot of well off people work from home (and if they’re hybrid, Monday is rarely a day they go into the office)
It's not about getting Israel to stop doing things. It's about getting our government to act on the will of the people.
But you have been proven repeatedly to have a real bias against protestors, while simultaneously clearly knowing absolutely nothing about protest techniques, as well as making yourself look foolish for invoking MLK despite again, knowing very little about him. So I'm going to disengage from your broken record nonsense, thanks.
Pencil neck geek Tom Cotton may have a Harvard law degree but that doesn’t always equate to grade A smarts. Also, as a lawyer, he should know better than to incite vigilante justice. See also Josh Hawley, with a Yale law degree, up fisting the Capitol insurrectionists.
I would be happy to move to the Republic of Stephenstan. Are you accepting émigrés?
Like Oxford-educated John Kennedy (R-Not That Kennedy), they put forward the aw-shucks-just-plain-folks cosplay and deliberately tamp down their bona-fides to get their electorate on-side and keep their festering asses elected.
I think the Civil Rights Movement was very different from the campus hippie protest movement. The latter was far less successful but there’s a tendency to drape themselves in the cloak of MLK.
Yep--there is a tendency among the privileged classes to assume that everyone they're encountering is similarly privileged ("oh, so you'll just miss BRUNCH???") and there's that upper middle class sense of "sure we'll piss off the cops, but they're not likely to mess with me, my dad's a lawyer" where activists who are not similarly insulated would realize that "hey, I could get my head bashed open" and "I can see things from the perspective of the regular folks I'm trying to appeal to".
I agree entirely that this method of protest is not just self-defeating, it's cruel to those who are not just "inconvenienced" by blocked traffic, but could be kept from getting to hospitals, or their jobs (not everyone can afford to take the day off to block a bridge, and their livelihoods depend on actually getting to work). Of course, whenever I say this it draws out the "screw everyone else, protest has to be ugly" crowd that thinks this sort of nonsense works, and is justified ("so what if your ambulance didn't get you to the ER in time? Palestinians don't even have ERs! And it's not like it's me in that ambulance..."). And of course this all depends on the protesters thinking their own cause is just (I'm sure they'd be singing a different tune if these were anti-COVID "lockdown" or anti-abortion protesters).
Which makes me react to Cotton's vigilante dreams with "you're NOT helping, Norman Bates-looking guy". Bad as the police can often be, there's pretty much no situation where I would think "you know what would make this go better? If citizens took the policing into their own hands! Maybe with weapons, even!" But for Cotton, it's all red meat to appeal to those who find these protests obnoxious and fantasize about doing violence to these idiots who, obnoxious as they are, don't deserve that.
Posturing for 2028. Can you imagine the MAGA slate ? Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, Mike Pompeo, Vivek Ramaswamy, Ron DeSantis, Gregg Abbott ; the slime mold spreads.
Dialogues from folks like Cotton are similar to those from TFG in the months leading up to the 1/6 insurrection. Cotton’s comments may not advocate specific directed actions, but they do lend themselves to giving implied permission to act to the cadres of folks who have already talked themselves into their respective belief systems about committing violent acts. Sadly, our Constitutionally mandated legal system can only act once actual violent acts have occurred. It’s not clear to me that domestic monitoring and warnings of impending violent actions are permitted in the US like those issued to the Russian government in advance of the recent tragic events there.
But, if TFG is reelected, all bets are off and a violent mentality like was seen in The Purge could follow Cotton’s and other’s implied permissions.
Right wingers love talking tough with other people’s lives.
Cotton knows that there is one class of people truly protected in their protests. This sniveling chickenhawk (himself a stolen valor aficionado) knows that the rightwing media human centipede will carry his bloodlust uncritically. After all, because if the protestors are purportedly liberals, it means they don't count as humans.
Just imagine the hew and cry if an elected Democrat suggested opening fire on the right wing anti-government protests. Imagine how there would be widespread condemnation from the so-called MSM and almost every pundit.
But ah, the rules are not the same as the parties are not the same.
Sorry, but it's not that complex a diplomatic situation.
Yes to all of your opinions in this article.
Every day, there is a gem in your writing that makes me smile AND distills some aspect of the discussion into an easily-grasped truth. Today, it's "...in reality, all they achieved was annoying strangers and hardening normal people to their cause." Thank you!
Maybe in the interest of a "some day" reunification of our country (which, I continue to hope, is not broken, but simply unfinished) it is heartening that on both the left and the right there are too many people wedded to something more like performance than persuasion...I just don't think so.
Cotton and his "let's make sure government accomplishes nothing, so the people know we have our underwear in a twist" cronies are really a lot more like the Golden Gate protesters than I think they would be comfortable with, if they ever developed the self-awareness of a planaria.
The comparison to MLK's principled and much more effective "theory" of protest is very relevant. Building coalitions, wooing allies, exposing injustice and educating people all take time. But they have some chance of bringing enough people around to your way of thinking to make real change.
Annoying people? Blocking traffic? Not so much...
What the "MLK made GOOD TROUBLE" fools keep getting wrong is that protest is not just about getting attention for your cause, it's about persuasion. MLK did have to technically break the law sometimes, but this was more in the vein of "not getting a permit that the local authorities refused to give him because they didn't like what he was saying" rather than "scream at passers-by". The bus boycott is an excellent example--no one was prevented from using the buses, but the bus company was deprived of the fares of black and allied riders (which made them eventually fold). MLK's efforts didn't just get attention, they convinced a lot of people who otherwise didn't have strong feelings about (or even didn't think about) civil rights to care about his cause, bringing enough pressure on policymakers to pass legislation, etc.
What Cotton gets wrong is that when you react to a protest with undue violence, you're going to create more sympathy for the protesters (like Bull Connor learned when reacting to civil rights protests--a big contrast to other pols who just let them march peacefully).
MLK blocked traffic.
MLK blocked traffic.
The Selma-to-Montgomery march blocked traffic the whole way.
I am so very tired of people throwing his name around who only want to talk about the nonviolent part, but not the protest part. Or the fact that at the time he angered and annoyed a lot of people. He was assassinated, for goodness sake.
Sitting at lunch counters annoyed the hell out of the white people who did not want them there.
These protests are escalating because the government is not acting. It's the same with climate protests. I think we should be a lot more worried about *losing the right* to protest than the protestors.
There is a fundamental difference between marching to register to vote and blocking traffic *for the purpose of blocking traffic.* As I said, the latter turns protest into violent coercion (and it doesn’t work)
Yes, racists were annoyed when Black people tried to eat in a restaurant but fence-sitting moderates were likely to think getting beat up for ordering a cheeseburger goes a bit far. There is no evidence that fence-sitting moderates are moved by protestors blocking traffic.
If your tactics are not working and are likely to get people killed down the line, I would advise reconsidering.
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/dont-use-kings-legacy-to-disparage-modern-protesters/
"A 1961 Gallup poll found that 61 percent of people disapproved of the Freedom Riders, a group of white and black activists who traveled together on buses and trains to protest segregation. The same poll found 57 percent thought demonstrations such as sit-ins at lunch counters would hurt African Americans’ chances of being integrated in the South."
I'll also just say that if you're blocking traffic, you're blocking traffic. The purpose would not seem to matter to the person being blocked. But whatever; cars block
I imagine if George Wallace announced "you're blocking traffic, leave a lane open" MLK wouldn't have been like "oh yeah, MAKE US, LOLZ". Like you say, that wasn't about "let's make Alabama drivers suffer" but rather "we are marching to register to vote".
The ancillary negative effects or disruptions to daily lives weren’t the whole point. Also, King’s civil disobedience was never about the ancillary negative effects. People look terrible dumping food over the heads of Black people just trying to eat. I don’t think people blocking traffic will look great in photos down the line.
As I said in my post, people are welcome to disagree and pursue tactics I think are counter productive. But after a point, they might want to at least acknowledge that the strategy is not working. It’s the equivalent of Wile E. Coyote continuing to buy Acme products.
It's not about making drivers suffer now, either. Its about disrupting the American economy, which is paying for the genocide.
Also, nice counterfactual.
Yeah that American economy is also feeding people, running hospitals, a lot more than just "paying for the genocide"--as if Israel would have to stop doing what they're doing because a road in San Francisco gets blocked.
Disrupting the American economy screws the most vulnerable the most -- especially now when it’s more likely that anyone doing a traditional commute is working class. Lot of well off people work from home (and if they’re hybrid, Monday is rarely a day they go into the office)
It's not about getting Israel to stop doing things. It's about getting our government to act on the will of the people.
But you have been proven repeatedly to have a real bias against protestors, while simultaneously clearly knowing absolutely nothing about protest techniques, as well as making yourself look foolish for invoking MLK despite again, knowing very little about him. So I'm going to disengage from your broken record nonsense, thanks.
Pencil neck geek Tom Cotton may have a Harvard law degree but that doesn’t always equate to grade A smarts. Also, as a lawyer, he should know better than to incite vigilante justice. See also Josh Hawley, with a Yale law degree, up fisting the Capitol insurrectionists.
I would be happy to move to the Republic of Stephenstan. Are you accepting émigrés?
Like Oxford-educated John Kennedy (R-Not That Kennedy), they put forward the aw-shucks-just-plain-folks cosplay and deliberately tamp down their bona-fides to get their electorate on-side and keep their festering asses elected.
Yep, that aw-shucks schtick apparently works quite well. Nobody ever bothers to read the fine print
The Ivies and other highly selective schools have a lot to answer for if that's the sort of shit they produce.
I think the Civil Rights Movement was very different from the campus hippie protest movement. The latter was far less successful but there’s a tendency to drape themselves in the cloak of MLK.
Yep--there is a tendency among the privileged classes to assume that everyone they're encountering is similarly privileged ("oh, so you'll just miss BRUNCH???") and there's that upper middle class sense of "sure we'll piss off the cops, but they're not likely to mess with me, my dad's a lawyer" where activists who are not similarly insulated would realize that "hey, I could get my head bashed open" and "I can see things from the perspective of the regular folks I'm trying to appeal to".
I agree entirely that this method of protest is not just self-defeating, it's cruel to those who are not just "inconvenienced" by blocked traffic, but could be kept from getting to hospitals, or their jobs (not everyone can afford to take the day off to block a bridge, and their livelihoods depend on actually getting to work). Of course, whenever I say this it draws out the "screw everyone else, protest has to be ugly" crowd that thinks this sort of nonsense works, and is justified ("so what if your ambulance didn't get you to the ER in time? Palestinians don't even have ERs! And it's not like it's me in that ambulance..."). And of course this all depends on the protesters thinking their own cause is just (I'm sure they'd be singing a different tune if these were anti-COVID "lockdown" or anti-abortion protesters).
Which makes me react to Cotton's vigilante dreams with "you're NOT helping, Norman Bates-looking guy". Bad as the police can often be, there's pretty much no situation where I would think "you know what would make this go better? If citizens took the policing into their own hands! Maybe with weapons, even!" But for Cotton, it's all red meat to appeal to those who find these protests obnoxious and fantasize about doing violence to these idiots who, obnoxious as they are, don't deserve that.
I got in trouble over on the Bulwark substack comments for saying how I really feel about Cotton, so I won't repeat it here.
I can see Trump wanting him to be Defense Secretary or something.
As for the protesters blocking traffic, they remind me of anti-abortion protesters, and about as useful.
He is a Classic A Idiot.