Back a couple of years ago we were treated to the spectacle of CNN (among others) referring to the “mostly peaceful protests”that followed in the wake of George Floyd’s murder at the hands of Derek Chauvin of the Minneapolis police department. It was a spectacle because the news was presented Baghdad Bob style. Viewers could clearly see the city burning as the news people insisted that the protests were “mostly peaceful” despite the obvious violence.
We are now getting a repeat performance in LA. In the wake of President Trump’s federalizing California’s national guard to quell anti-ICE protests, the violence has resumed. Anyone who doubts this simply has to look at the pictures taken at the scene, some of which are reproduced below.
LA Riots
LA Rioters
There are some things here that should be blindingly obvious: (1) the “protests” have (predictably enough) become riots, (2) the protesters have become a mob that engaged in violence, (3) Trump’s order to federalize the California National Guard is perfectly legal, and (4) the protesters (and their supporters in the press) make no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, albeit for different reasons.
Unsurprisingly local California Democratic officials have adopted rhetoric whose aim is to attempt to (1) minimize or deny the protesters willful use of violence and (2) blame the violence on Trump’s decision to call in the National Guard (and now the marines).
As it happens, I have no use for Donald Trump. I have never voted for him, and think that on his best day he is a national embarrassment. Moreover I think both the Republicans and the Democrats are dead wrong in their respective approaches to immigration policy. Regardless, violence should have no place in the debate.
It is clear to me that we should welcome qualified immigrants, and especially university students, into the US. But neither party seems to make a distinction between legal and illegal immigration. Nor do either of them appear to be willing to seriously engage in a reform effort by introducing a realistic bill in Congress.
But facts are facts and one simple fact is both true and largely unrecognized or even acknowledged. It is that lately partisans have accepted the use of violence as a legitimate political tool. Witness not just the rioting going on in LA; look at the fact that a would be assassin lurked outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Bret Kavanaugh. Or that candidate Trump was nearly assassinated.
Similarly, look at the people who have announced they are “supporters” of Luigi Mangione. This is a man whose chief claim to fame is that he murdered an insurance executive in cold blood in Manhattan. And while we are at it, let’s not forget the January 6 rioters, virtually all of whom were pardoned by Donald Trump.
Then there are the supporters of Hamas, mostly found on elite college campuses, who celebrated the violence that Hamas visited on innocent Israelis and others. Some of the campus advocates for Hamas participated in campus violence themselves. Or how about the protesters who parked themselves outside of Anthony Blinken’s home in Virginia, and courageously decided to pour fake blood in front of the vehicles driving his children to pre-school. Those children were 3 and 4 years old.
Outside Secretary of State Anthony Blinken’s Home
It is not like these incidents are rare. There is a very long list of politicians, judges, executives and others who have faced actual violence or threats designed to intimidate or cancel them.
What is so amazing about all this is that it is political malpractice, committed no less, by people who consider themselves political professionals. Do they really think that the vast majority of voters really want to see their cities overrun and set on fire by a mob?
Perhaps these alleged professionals haven’t had time to view last November’s election result. And they haven’t let it sink in that they are performing a great service for advocates of illiberalism.
JFB
