The Madness of America -- Charles M. Blow JUNE 6, 2016

[bemildred]

The candidacy of Donald Trump, the fervor of those who support it, and the fierce opposition of those who don’t is making America mad — both angry and insane, as the dual definitions of the word implies.

One of the most disturbing displays of this madness is the violence that Trump has incited in his supporters, and the violent ways in which opposition forces have responded, like the exchange we saw last week in San Jose.

Both forms of violence are unequivocally wrong, but speak to a base level of hostility that hovers around the man like the stench from rotting flesh.

What is particularly disturbing is to see anti-Trump forces lashing out at Trump’s supporters, seemingly provoked simply by a difference in political position.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/06/opinion/the-madness-of-america.html?_r=0

[Meteor Man]

1. A riot is the language of the unheard

MLK:

I contend that the cry of "black power" is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro. I think that we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard.

[bemildred]

2. Injustice often provokes a violent response, yes.

That is why injustice is stupid, as well as wrong.
But that does not mean the violent response to injustice is wise, or likely to be effective.
MLK was not a big fan of riots, and he knew what he was about.

[Meteor Man]

3. MLK also understood why people riot

The disposessed, the outcasts, the families mourning fallen heroes and loved ones gunned down by cops, loving fathers separated from their children by prison walls, crippled forgotten vets, young men and women who will never pay off their college debt, children sent to "reform school" instead of college, the homeless masses yearning for hot and cold running water, Americans living in ghettos and barrios, trailer trash and drug addicts, we've heard it all before.

[bemildred]

5. Right, they get angry, and they act out, and that excuses continued oppression.

Last edited Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:19 AM - Edit history (2)

And the oppressors want nothing more. They will start a riot themselves if you don't do it for them. It's their game, oppression, controlling the rabble. And they want nothing more than for you to be a rabble so they can control you.

When the oppressed learn to behave and act together with discipline, then you can win, then you have a movement, an army, a plan. If you want to beat them, if you want to win, you have to be smart, not angry. You need to bend that anger to a purpose.

[Nitram]

4. I am opposed to violence at campaign rallies.

But when you listen to Trump's rhetoric, don't you wonder about the fact that there was so little opposition to Adolf back in the day? Is it wrong to oppose fascism with violence? And we're not talking deaths or serous injury here. My instinct tells me that it would be best to refrain from violent protest against Trump because it will just bolster him. I do not believe he can win the election, so it is best to refrain from violence. But if Trump wins?

[bemildred]

6. It'a toughy all right.

What I am sure of is that when you resort to coercion and violence from habit, it becomes the way things are, if government will not restrain it's hand, it creates over time the disorder and violence that will eventually weaken it if not bring it down. Banana Republics are weak.

Strong nations, parties, groups and societies all do not require a lot of coercion. Look around. There are such places. They have obedience. That obedience depends on the legitimacy of the leadership, that they serve the nation, the group, not themselves. Hence our politicans babble on about democracy here while exercising every strategem to defeat it; because they still want us to believe.

If the leaders serve themselves, lots of other people will too. That's us right now, a collection of little enterpreneurs. A rabble.

It is no accident that this nation was strongest when it was most legitimate politically, when it was least corrupt. We really did bestride the world like a colossus after WWII, but look at us now.

And violence and coercion are really easy habits to pick up. So direct, so cheap, so convenient, at first. But when it becomes habit, it spreads, becomes contagious.

So easy you immediately notice politicians who do know how to stay their hand, who have some sense of balance and measure and are not just lashing out at every affront. Who don't run around pandering and making threats all day.

So basically, there is no closed form solution, you have to pay attention and you better be right, but success favors people who don't rely on coercion and violence to get their way. And once you get to that place, you, the big shot, are kind of trapped, you've got too much stuff to hide, too many things you can't allow to be known.

MLK was not ignorant about violence, he was not about making the country safe for the government either, but he understood that violence would not get him what he wanted. Only organization and discipline could do that. In a good army, the soldiers only shoot on the order to shoot, and you don't shoot just to make noise. A lot of people still need to learn that lesson. Violence and coercion are at best lousy but necessary tools, stopgaps to be replaced at the earliest moment with proper incentives. We rely on them more and more every day.

[malthaussen]

8. As I like to point out, Asimov was wrong.

Violence is not the last resort of the incompetent, it is the first.

I'd say that initiating violence is a less than optimal solution to most social questions, but I'm less certain about replying to violence with violence. Turning the other cheek only works if your opponent is capable of feeling shame.

-- Mal

[bemildred]

9. It's a tough question.

People will agree that everybody has a right to defend themselves, and I feel that too, that some things you don't have to put up with.

But then we will be all over the place about the details, who is the aggressor, and who the defender, and what each others faults and virtues are and so on.

It's sort of like the statement that everybody ought to be free. I do agree, but free to do what is very important too, We can't just all be running amok on each other, there have to be boundaries.

And there we don't agree.

[Igel]

7. The Germans at the time perceived themselves to be unheard.

They were oppressed, they believed, and could point to their oppressors. Some were domestic. Some were foreign.

Not all riots and not all resistance to perceived oppression is worth honoring. It's considered an insult to say this these days where perceptions are more important than observation and feelings more important than logic. As long as we pick the right groups' perceptions to honor and render inviolate. That right the is prima facie bias. First seek truth and justice; then seek mercy based on sympathy and empathy. This makes it clear what the facts are, and allows full reign to mercy; reversing the order, and confusing empathy with justice, places bias at the head of justice and says that those we like are special and always innocent and those we dislike should be punished on precisely those grounds.

In the case of pre-WWII Germany it is certainly the that they had perceptions of oppression on their side. And once you invoke passions and you need to side with "the community" against outsiders, all hell can break lose and there can be no justice.

It was the same in pre-Revolution Russia. They were oppressed. And this unleashed an internal war, border wars, untold oppression and finally purges and the GULag.

It was the same in pre-Revolution China. They were oppressed. And this led to a long-term civil war, one in which the authorities were hobbled in their fight against Japan by having to also fight a civil war.

It was the same with Japan, who was oppressed and humiliated by the West and just wanted justice. As they defined it. And we got the Pacific theatre out of that--with a long-running tragedy playing there.

Even the voices of the jihadists claim oppression, and they get little pushback from many in the Middle East because they agree with the underlying perceptions. They want justice.

Next time somebody takes offense that you are saying their perceptions are wrong and to consider a broader set of facts, remember these. Germany, the USSR, the PRC, Japan, jihadists. We have no trouble saying their perceptions were wrong, or mostly wrong, or that their passions were vile. (At least if you're all pro-Enlightenment, but that's so 20th century.)

[Norman Conch Quest]

10. K&R