In Protest of Rioting

In a recent commentary by Dana Milbank, the headline reads, “Only fascists call violence ‘legitimate.’” Similarly, only idiots and coconspirators call weeks of concerted rioting, including looting, arson, and wanton destruction, “mostly peaceful protests.”

To emphasize his point, Milbank poorly uses satire and hyperbole. He gives examples of protests, which he deems inappropriate, and lists specific harms and incidents of destruction. However, there is not a single mention of weeks of nationwide rioting in 2020. His omission cannot be inadvertent. It is certainly conscious and deliberate, as if violence by one faction is damnable but entirely justified if undertaken by more favored actors.

Without the benefit of “context,” Millbank continues the narrative that “[s]even people died in connection with the attack,” but he conspicuously ignores and conveniently omits that five (5) of those “connected” deaths were suicides in the weeks following January 6th. The alleged “connections” are, at best, tenuous. Where are the ever present and constantly vigilant “fact-checkers”?

Why did Milbank not see fit to even mention the “mostly peaceful protests” of 2020? Those concerted riots raged for weeks rather than a single event on a given day. They extended from coast-to-coast, lasted not less than two (2) months, resulted in property damage between $1–2 Billion, and led to at least twenty-five (25) deaths “connected” to the rioting.

They hypocrisy is deafening. Either violence is an entirely unacceptable form of protest, or it is not. Either some rights are worth fighting for (both literally and figuratively), or they are not.

If the argument boils down to “my” (violent) protests are “legitimate,” “necessary,” and “just,” but “yours” can never be, then this is less about some moral imperative and more about a personal and subjective cost-benefit analysis. In short, “What’s in it for me?”

If that is to be the test, then potential but insatiable beneficiaries are likely to see profit in violence. They are eager to sift through the ashes and rubble in order to glean the spoils of “war” (even if metaphorical). They are likely to engage in “revolution,” so that would-be revolutionaries can thereafter plunder and pillage.

Rarely, if ever, is there anything more noble or moral in government and politics. The political process is about power, pure and simple. Some have power, as well as the position, prestige, and profit, which can be derived therefrom. Others crave and covet those things. Persons and peoples will do all manner of despicable things in the pursuit of power over others. Power is an inevitably corrupting influence, and there is no way to moralize its pursuit or its exercise.