Days of Change

Compromise Means No One WIns | November 29, 2014

I’ve been on the Crawdad Hole blog today discussing the disruptive “protests” around the country and their difference from marches for rights in the past. If you look back at the civil rights protests of the 60’s, they were designed to show America the racism in the South. The non-violence also helped to make the police and the states look worse by showing peaceful assemblies being violently broken up and the protesters beaten and arrested.

Conservatives have often written about how these protests were more Republican than Democrats, with Democrats being the Southern governors and legislators keeping discriminatory legislation. It’s closer to the transitional period where early progressives tried to change society with popular support instead of government fiat.

Viewed against the civil rights movement, these “protests” make no sense. Their heroes are villains. Instead of showing that blacks have white support, they are trying to hide the number of white people in the protests. They protest angrily and violently and the police treat them professionally and rarely charge them.

My conclusion changed throughout the course of the discussion. The grievance industry is not going to Ferguson because of an injustice. They are in Ferguson because it is polarized. If a bad, racist cop shot an honors student in the back, everyone would be outraged. The cop would be tried and convicted. Justice would be done. If the action is self-defense by a White person against a Black person and there is a disparity between the fight, (bringing a knife to a gun fight comes to mind) that alone can be the basis of a protest against “the system.”

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have been associated in the past with “shake downs.” This is where a party (like a business) would have to make financial concessions or protesters might show up to hurt business. It’s a win-win for the shake down artist. They either get some cash or they raise their profile and get back at the guy who wouldn’t pay him. That’s the key. In the progressive world of today, winning means getting what you want and the other guy losing something to get it. It reminded me of the “Victory or Death” scene from 1984’s The Last Starfighter.

Let’s look at Obama’s recent immigration actions. Republicans had tried compromise, where both sides give and take to put together something with moderate support from a large number of people. Obama instead talked about “common ground.” That sounds like a compromise, but it could just as easily mean that Obama might be willing to settle for signing the things that Republicans agree with him on instead of actually letting them get anything he doesn’t want.

I see some of the same things in these protests. They don’t want good cops in Black neighborhoods. They want scared cops who know that their lives are over if they have to take out their gun. They want police departments to know that they will be painted as trigger-happy racists unless they conform to shake downs. I don’t wonder much why progressives ignore terrorism. They are learning from it.

 

Advertisements

Posted in Uncategorized

1 Comment

  1. What they really want is reveng for something that happened 400-200 years ago. Their bottom-line revenge fantasy is making slaves out of Whites.

    Comment by Mary — November 30, 2014 @ 12:21 am


    2016 Polls

    Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 16 other followers

%d bloggers like this: