There was indeed a new political order that was created in 1968 and it involved Republicans winning 5 out of 6 presidential elections, with crime as a major issue and mass incarceration as a major outcome.
Democrats are delusional if they think that images of mobs looting supermarkets and burning police stations will not hurt them especially if they spread and intensify. At best these riots are contained quickly and are largely forgotten by November. If they recur nearer the election, they absolutely could swing the election to Trump.
If the Dems want to win through public stability. then the public needs to have confidence in their legal system. The rampant abuse needs to end. This violence is a reaction to that (and probably rampant poverty too). Yes, rioting is always horrendous, but don’t think authoritative crackdowns will solve this problem.
Dems shouldn’t applaud rioters, fine, good advice. Better advice would be to fix the systemic problems that lead to civil breakdown.
Democrats should fix the problems and condemn the rioters. The rioters are part of the problem not the solution. If riots become common, voters will vote, as they did in the 70s and 80s for the party that cracks down on them.
Voters trustthe police more than most institutions including the media and the main branches of government.
If only the systemic problems of civil society could be addressed a day or to before the riots eh? I wonder why they are only looked at afterwards? (if at all).
I wish riots never happened. I wish violent opportunists didn’t take advantage of the breakdown of civil society for self profit. I also wish governments wouldn’t abide civil injustice until a day or two after violent public reaction and civil breakdown. Sadly rioting is a problem, it is a solution, and it is also many more additional problems.
The reason that MLK was so disappointed in the white moderate was because he really needed them on his side. The white moderate outnumbered the racist groups by an order of magnitude.
The problem is that the white moderate, as any content citizens in a society, valued stability for themselves over equality or justice for others, and they found that stability threatened.
Hmm, so what I hear you saying is that it is in the republicans best interests to continue to encourage an environment where the people have great distrust of the police and other institutions.
If the police are bad enough, then people will punish those who protest against the police.
Good tactic. I mean, it’s reprehensible and purely evil, but now that I think about it, very strategic. People who value stability over the treatment of others will fear a breakdown of their order more than they fear someone else being brutally murdered.
If republicans want to win this November, they should encourage more police violence and brutality. They should treat peaceful protests as violent mobs. They should put instigators into peaceful protests to lead the violence.
Oh wait, they are. Good on ya.
Some people are willing to burn the world, so long as they get to rule the ashes.
And as noted elsewhere, you are just following the talking points of the right that grossly ignore that understanding why a riot happens does not mean that Liberals or Democrats agree with the rioting.
Actually Bill Clinton was very careful about the crime issue and was always worried about being tagged as soft on crime. Remember Sister Souljah? Or the execution of Ricky Rector?
And? That shows what took place indeed like I said, bet you searched to see if Democrats like Clinton were/are supporting the riots, in reality what you implied is still an ugly right wing media talking point.
Biden apologized for that, by contrast Trump is taking the advise of Bush senior (ignore the causes, just demonize the protesters) up to 11, good luck with that.
The point is that Clinton worked really hard to show he was tough on crime which gave him the space to talk about structural factors. He was far from a pure progressive on the issue and indeed progressives have lambasted him for the Rector execution for a long time.
Right through the 70s and 80s Democrats lost elections because they were perceived as soft on crime. Clinton wasn’t an exception; on the contrary he was someone who learnt from those losses and made sure he wouldn’t be similarly vulnerable.
Its sick, seeing your president tweet out incendiary taunts of violence and retribution while hiding in the white house behind many layers of secret service.
Heh, I still remember when commentators and critics were condemned by picturing Trump as a cartoon villain, many Republicans still act as if Trump is not just the stereotype. That is what he is in real life…
I always suspected that some right wing voters believed that pollsters, whose very existence depends heavily on being as accurate as possible, skewed their results because of some sort of “agenda.” But it’s still nice to hear it said out loud.
Why should Democrats be solely responsible for fixing the problems. Republicans aren’t exempt from addressing the country’s issues. Or do the R’s only exist to make things worse.
I am just afraid that these riots will strengthen the Republican lawnorder campaign. If only people could come to realize that when non-violence accomplishes nothing, violence results. Remember 1776? This cop will either be acquitted (can I image that 12 jurors can be chosen not one of whom is a white supremacist who believes that any killing of a nigger is justified?) or else he will get sentenced to three years, be out in one and acclaimed a martyr. Cops just cannot be punished.
That reminds me: have any of these unjustified killings by cop ever resulted in some sort of street justice, where the cop winds up dead or seriously injured because the law did nothing?
Because I keep expecting it, with all the anger and hatred and injustice, but I never have heard of it happening. In fact, I can’t think of any murderer who prominently gets off but then winds up harmed.