A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Trump’s Abandoned Mob

by Leave a Comment

After years of shaping his base, Trump incited them to launch an attack on the capitol to overturn the election. While resulting in surprisingly few deaths, this coup attempt failed. While the right attempted to blame the attack on Antifa, the FBI quickly refuted this absurd lie.

As Trump’s final days in office approached, the rioters pleaded for pardons. Since they believed they were doing the will of Trump, it makes sense that they would expect a pardon—after all, they were his loyal warriors who attacked the United States to keep him on the throne. Trump, who went home to watch the riot on TV rather than leading his forces, abandoned them once again. He did, however, issue numerous pardons—just none for them.

In fiction, such abandoned followers would be outraged and later seek vengeance for the cruel betrayal. But Trump’s most devoted followers dwell in an alternate reality in which Trump is their god-emperor and his throne was stolen. Many of them also embrace the ludicrous (but dangerous) fictional world of QAnon that envisions Trump as the savior of America—he will sweep away child-stealing cultists in the storm. As such, it would not be surprising if this abandoned mob weaves a narrative in which the heroic Trump has gone to Florida to heroically prepare for the next battle. One for which he will, without doubt, call forth his loyal warriors to place him back on the throne that is rightfully his. Or maybe this will shock them out of their delusion, and they will see Trump for what he really is: a squalid little drifter, a soulless husk of pure selfishness.

 

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Thoughts on Joe & America

by Leave a Comment

Joe Biden was sworn in today as President despite the efforts of Trump and his supporters to overturn the results of the election with lies and insurrection. While Trump and some Republicans persist in the dangerous lie of widespread voter fraud, there have been calls for unity. These generally amount to calls for the Democrats to allow Trump and his allies to avoid the consequences of their actions. The Republicans are also calling for the Democrats to work with them; the idea seems to be that the Republicans want the Democrats to forget and forgive years of refusal to work together.

While the country has been heavily divided by the lies of Trump and the right-wing media, I do agree that it would be good if the chasm between Americans could be bridged or at least reduced. But the burden of doing this rests on the right: they worked very hard to expand the crack in America with repeated lies. The latest big lie, that the election was stolen, is perhaps the biggest hammer blow on the crack. If Trump were not such a lazy and incompetent fascist, he might have been able to pull off a coup. Fortunately, he stirred up his base but did not secure meaningful support from the military and the police. He was also so lazy that he did not bother to go with his followers to the capital; he simply went home to watch it play out on television. While Trump’s lazy, incompetent ignorance was a disaster in the context of COVID, these traits likely saved America from a fall into fascism. At least for now.

While the sulky snowflake Trump flew off to Florida, his followers and enablers are still pushing the lie that the election was stolen. Some are explicitly rejecting violence as a means of achieving their goals, but their persistence in this obvious lie encourages others to engage in violence. After all, the lie that the election was stolen and the lies that this necessitates (such as that the institutions and officials across the political spectrum and across the nation are in on the conspiracy) would tend to lead a believer to thinking that violence is the only rational option. After all, if Trump won and there is a massive conspiracy against him, there would seem to be no peaceful remedies. I do get why some Republicans would want to maintain the lie while also wanting things to be peaceful: they want to exploit the lie to their own advantage, but do not want to be killed by the mob or have the government destroyed. So, in terms of unity, the only chance for progress is for the Republicans and their allies to stop lying about the election and, ideally, hold Trump and his allies accountable. This seems unlikely and shows that the Republicans are not serious about unity: they just want to avoid accountability and are counting on Democrats being stupid enough to work with them. Democrats do, of course, have a history of doing just that.

While the right cast Joe as a radical leftist (while also accusing him of being a racist, a tough-on-crime politician, and a failure at advancing the progressive agenda) he is not. While Biden is to the left of fascists and authoritarians, he would be center-right on a “normal” political spectrum. That is, he favors the traditional status quo and wants to maintain capitalism. It is true that he will push the country leftwards—but this is leftwards from Trump. It is also true that he will support policies that help the middle class, minorities, and the poor—but none of these will be radical changes. He is a safe centrist and Wall Street is fine with Joe. It must be noted that he will make a big difference in the COVID response. Trump not only proved his ignorance and incompetence, but he also intentionally caused active harm to America—and his followers adored him for this. Biden will follow a rational plan that should improve things significantly, though he will face a serious obstacle in the form of Trump’s base.

While Joe is better than Trump (which is an insanely low bar that any normal human exceeds) it is unlikely that he will address the fundamental problems besetting the United States. While his policies will probably be a smidgen to the left of those of the Obama era, it is likely that we will see Obama 2.0 in terms of the policies Joe enacts. It would not, I think, be much of a stretch to say that we will see what amounts to a third Obama term—continuing what Obama did. As critics on the left (and attackers on the right) have pointed out, Obama-Biden did little for the workers of America. While Obama was obviously an historic President, his administration did relatively little to address the problems besetting minorities in America. That is, Obama-Biden was a very centrist regime and friendly to the elites of capitalism. Perhaps most importantly, the failures of Obama-Biden helped enable Trump to become President. While Trump lost the Presidency, a more competent fascist would probably have easily won—and the fascist to follow Biden might be a competent one.

Overall, I have the plausible worry that Joe is simply going to shift the country back to 2012. While this would be an improvement over where we are now, it will simply delay the success of fascism in America. As noted above, Trump is an incompetent, lazy fascist. He is also, as others have said, a soulless husk without virtue who can barely use language. Yet his followers are deluded into thinking he is strong, honest, and competent. Just imagine what a competent, charismatic fascist could do in 2024. Perhaps our only real hope is that America is a trash fascist country whose trash fascists (trashcists, if one will or trashcysts if one prefers) want trash leaders—so competent fascists will fail in favor of more Trumps.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Republican Response: Call for Unity with the Haters

by Leave a Comment

After Trump supporters attacked the capitol, the Democrats moved quickly to impeach the President for inciting this insurrection. Trump is probably safe from being convicted for a crime, but impeachment is a political matter.  As noted in the previous essay, some Republicans initially tried to claim that Antifa was behind the attack—but this lie was quickly refuted by the FBI. While this lie is still popular on social media, Trump’s defenders have employed two other tactics: accusing the Democrats of being haters and calling for unity.

Claiming Democrats are the party of haters has been a standard tactic for some time and is often used to defend Trump. The simplest version is the mere accusation of hate, such as saying “I’ve never seen such hate” in response to a criticism of Trump. Variations also include such things as accusing Democrats who point out racism of being “the real racists” or accusing them of “Trump derangement syndrome.”

While sometimes used as a mere insult, the accusation of hate is commonly used to “refute” claims. For example, Nancy might argue that Trump fomented an insurrection, and the “refutation” might be to say that Nancy hates Trump. This is fallacious reasoning. Even if Nancy did hate Trump, it would not follow that her claim is false. This fallacious reasoning is a version of the accusation of hate fallacy (it can also be considered a form of ad hominin attack):

 

Premise 1: Person A makes claim C about person B.

Premise 2: Person A is accused of hating person B.

Conclusion: Claim C is false.

 

As my usual silly math example shows, this is bad logic:

 

Premise 1: Dave says that Adolph is wrong when Adolph says that 2+2=7.

Premise 2: Dave hates Adolph.

Conclusion: So, 2+2=7.

 

While hating someone would be a biasing factor, this does not disprove the alleged hater’s claim. If it could be shown that a person’s hate biases them, then this would impact their credibility—but this would never suffice to disprove a person’s claim. Like many fallacies, the accusation of hate can have great psychological force—people tend to reject claims made by those they think hates someone they like. As such even if the Democrats do hate Trump (and others), this has no bearing on the truth of the claims they make about Trump.

The Republicans could make a moral criticism of the Democrats by accusing them of hating Trump (and others). This would require not only proving that a Democrat hates Trump (which might be easy) but showing that the hatred is not warranted by Trump’s actions. Even if this succeeded, it would not refute a claim made by the alleged hater.  I do think that a case could me made that Trump merits hate, although I have a moral preference against hating people. Thus, the Republican accusations of hate have no merit as attempts to refute claims.

One variation of the claim that Democrats are haters is the claim that they are dividers (this is a similar ad hominem attack). As would be expected, the Democrats have been accused of being dividers for impeaching Trump and wanting to hold him accountable for his actions. Saying that the Democrats are dividers would not, obviously, refute their claims—such as the claim that Trump’s action warrants impeachment.

The Republicans also seem to be advancing a utilitarian moral argument: impeaching Trump (or otherwise holding him accountable) would divide the nation and thus create harm. As such, the Democrats should not impeach Trump (or otherwise hold him accountable). The Republicans are probably right that impeaching Trump again would anger his supporters and thus expand the already vast political divide. It could be rationally debated whether holding Trump accountable would create more harm than letting him, once again, escape without consequences; but letting people escape consequences because some people would be upset would seem to be a problematic moral position.

In response to the Republican call for unity (in the form of not holding them or Trump accountable) critics have pointed out that Trump and his enablers have spent months lying about the election, trying to undermine democracy, and inspiring a violent insurrection against the United States. There are also credible claims that some Republicans assisted the insurrectionists by giving them the opportunity to conduct reconnaissance before their attack.

While it might be tempting to reject the Republican claim that Democrats should be uniters by declining to hold Trump (and others) accountable because of their hypocrisy, this would be an ad hominem tu quoque.   This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person’s claim is false because it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. As such, the fact that Republicans call for unity after months of dividing does not disprove their claim: they could be right despite their hypocrisy. But their behavior is, of course, relevant to the ethics of the situation.

If the Republicans claim that the Democrats are wrong for dividing the country by holding Trump accountable, then consistency requires that their actions that divide the country would also be wrong. As such, they would need to accept that they have been acting wrongly. This could require that they accept the consequences of their actions and, at the very least, they would need to act in accord with their professed principle and renounce their lies about the election and cease instigating insurrection.

There is also the obvious moral argument that these actions by some Republicans warrant a response even if it would enhance disunity. To use an analogy, imagine that Dawn and Sam are a married couple. Sam learns that Dawn has had multiple affairs, has stolen from his family, has spread vicious lies about him, and killed the family dog. Sam files for divorce and his family files charges against Dawn. In response, Dawn and her relatives accuse Sam and his family of being haters and dividers to refute the charges against Dawn. They also say that Sam should not go through with the divorce and file charges because this would divide the family. But Dawn’s misdeeds would merit the divorce and charges—Sam would be a fool to not go through with them. The same holds true for Trump and his fellows: their actions merit consequences and their calls for unity are absurd.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Republican Response: False False Flag

by Leave a Comment

After being incited by President Trump, his followers attacked the nation’s capital. After the mob departed, some Republican legislators emerged from hiding and responded to the attack by accusing Antifa of being behind it. This echoed the right-wing media’s narrative about a false flag operation. While there does seem to have been at least one left-wing activist at the capitol, the Antifa claim has been utterly debunked. But the idea of a false false flag is an interesting matter.

A false flag operation is an action conducted with the intention of disguising the identity of those responsible and placing the blame on another party. There are numerous historical examples of such operations, which often involved ships attempting to deceive enemy combatants about their identity. There are also cases in which nations use false flag operations as a pretext to start a war: the nation wishing to start a war engages in an attack that is made to look like action taking by the nation they want to go to war with.

In the context of domestic American politics, a false flag operation would involve members of one political affiliation or organization conducting an operation while identifying as members of another affiliation or organization. For example, if a white nationalist put on a BLM t-shirt and went to a BLM protest to vandalize property and thus get BLM blamed, then that would be a false flag operation.

In the case of the assault on the capitol, the claim put forth by some on the right is that those who engaged in and incited violence at the capital were either Antifa masquerading as Trump supporters or that Antifa members masquerading as Trump supporters incited Trump supporters to engage in violence against people and property.

As noted above, it does appear that at least one left-wing activist was encouraging the insurrectionists. This person denied association with Antifa but did say he believed that black lives matter. While I should not need to point out the blindingly obvious, the fact that there was one left-winger present at the attack does not prove that it was a false flag operation by the left. One obvious reason is that this person identified themselves as a left-winger (though this would need to be confirmed). Another obvious reason is that generalizing from the presence of one leftist to all or most of the mob would be a hasty generalization in the extreme. Evidence would be needed of a significant false flag left wing presence. And, as noted above, the FBI is certain that this is not the case.

Florida’s disgraceful Matt Gaetz did advance the false claim that facial recognition software identified Antifa at the insurrection. But the company he mentioned replied with the truth: the software recognized neo-Nazis and a QAnon believer rather than Antifa. Gaetz’ false claim cannot, obviously, support the conclusion that Antifa was behind the attack.

The right-wing media and people on social media have pointed to photos purporting to show that people who were at the capitol attack also attended leftist events, such as BLM protests. From a critical thinking standpoint there are two main concerns with such photos. The first is that any photo of this type would need to be analyzed to determine that it has not been modified. Anyone with basic Photoshop skill can easily create a realistic looking fake image in minutes. The second is that there is a crucial difference between being photographed at a BLM protest and being part of the protest. After all, people who are hostile to BLM do attend BLM protests but are not participants. To use an obvious example, there are photos showing Kyle Rittenhouse at a BLM protest—but he is not a BLM activist or Antifa. This does lead to the epistemic concern of knowing whether a person is affiliated with a group or ideology or engaging in a deception to conduct false flag operations.

Since I teach epistemology, I know that skeptical arguments can easily be made against knowing anything. But such philosophical skepticism has little practical value in this context. That is, while we might not know whether a rioter is a robot or a Trump supporter, this is not a serious concern. What is of concern is sorting out, in practical terms, affiliations when making claims about responsibility.

The FBI and other credible sources who claim that Antifa was not behind the attack presumably look at the people involved and examine their history. Social media and the surveillance state make this extremely easy. For example, Trump’s supporters have claimed that the horned hat wearing ‘Q Shaman’ who attacked the capitol is an Antifa agent. While this is not logically impossible (just as his being an alien or a robot is not logically impossible) his known history shows that he is a devoted QAnon supporter who has been documented counter protesting BLM protests. While Trump supporters simply say he is Antifa, there is no evidence of his being involved with Antifa or BLM (aside from opposing both). Given the evidence showing that he is what he claims to be, the burden of proof is on the Trump supporters. If they have evidence that he is Antifa, then they can easily provide it. The claim that he is not Antifa has already been supported. One could make up stories about how he is a super deep Antifa operative who spent years creating a false persona just for such an occasion, but this would require evidence—the mere possibility is not enough. After all, one could just as easily say that every act of violence at a BLM protest was caused by Trump supporters and that any evidence to the contrary is just proof that they have the deepest of covers. This would, of course, be absurd.

While evidence might surface of Antifa involvement, there is currently no proof that Antifa was involved in any meaningful way. The evidence all shows that the attackers were almost all Trump supporters (except for the one person mentioned earlier). A such, the right has been using the false false flag strategy.

The false flag strategy is, as suggested above, is to falsely claim that an event is a false flag event. The intention is to switch responsibility. In this case, the intent was to shift blame from Trump and Trump supporters to Antifa. This method can be effective. In this situation, the right was quick to place blame on Antifa and people tend to believe what they hear first and undoing a false belief is much harder than creating one. This strategy is also aided by confirmation bias: those who are favorable to Trump or who dislike Antifa will tend to believe (alleged) evidence that benefits Trump or matches their feelings about Antifa.  Repetition is also an important factor: the false Antifa claim was widely disseminated and repeated across the right-wing news and social media. People tend to believe what they hear repeated, and the Antifa claim is no exception. There are, of course, people who know what they are claiming is a lie—they are not the deluded victims of a false false flag tactic but its perpetrators.

The defense against such false false flags is, as with other such things, to be critical when accepting claims and to seek independent confirmation from credible sources. Unfortunately, those most likely to believe such claims are the least likely to think critically about them—for obvious reasons.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Capitol Assault: Epistemic Defects

by Leave a Comment

Incited by Trump and his enablers, Trump supporters attacked the capitol of the United States. While this is mostly a matter of law and politics, it does raise issues in both epistemology (the theory of knowledge) and ethics. I have been working informally on epistemic epidemiology and this provides an ideal case.

While Trump, his enablers and some of his supporters know that the election was not stolen, some of his followers seem to honestly hold this belief. This raises questions about the specific defects in their belief forming mechanisms. As with cancer, one must inquire whether the defects are localized (beliefs about Trump) or widespread. One must also wonder about the seriousness of the defects. Given that these people violently attacked the capitol, it is likely that most suffer from broad and serious epistemic defects.

I hold the view that these people must have epistemic defects because the evidence against their view is widespread and strong. There is also the fact that even a bit of reflection will reveal that their beliefs cannot be true. As one example, Trump’s legal team was well on its way to a hundred law suits about the election but suffered defeat after defeat (sometimes in the courts of Trump appointed Republican judges). Trump’s legal team was also careful to never make accusations of widespread fraud in court, since lying in court has consequences. A rational thinker would conclude that Trump had no evidence—otherwise it would have been presented in court.

As a second example, there is the paradox of the vast conspiracy. To claim the existence of a widespread conspiracy against Trump, the conspiracy theorists had to keep expanding those they claimed were involved—this seems to now go all the way to Vice President Mike Pence. The paradox is that they need to claim a huge conspiracy but if that conspiracy is so huge then Biden would have won simply by the conspirators voting for him. Given the lack of evidence for their beliefs, one must wonder why they believe. While there are many factors at play, the main one is their acceptance of sources that lack rational credibility.

There are two types of credibility: rational and rhetorical. A bit oversimplified, rational credibility means that you should believe the source and rhetorical credibility means that you feel you should believe the source. The difference between the two rests on the difference between logical force and psychological force. Logical force is objective and is a measure of how well the evidence given for a claim supports the claim.

Psychological force is subjective and is a measure of how much emotional influence something has on a person’s willingness to believe a claim. This is assessed in practical terms: how effective was it in persuading someone to accept the claim? While the logical force of an argument is independent of the audience, psychological force is audience dependent. What might persuade one person to accept a claim might enrage another into rejecting it with extreme prejudice. In the case of Trump’s followers, they believe him and his enablers—though these people have no rational credibility.

One reason that Trump’s followers believe him is that they are duped by an appeal to authoritarian “reasoning.” The error occurs when a person believes a claim simply because it is made by the authoritarian leader they accept. It has this form:

 

Premise 1: Authoritarian leader L makes claim c.

Conclusion: Claim C is true.

 

The fact that an authoritarian leader makes a claim does not provide evidence or a logical reason that supports the claim. It also does not disprove the claim—accepting or rejecting a claim because it comes from an authoritarian would both be errors. The authoritarian could be right about the claim but, as with any fallacy, the error lies in the reasoning.

An authoritarian leader type is characterized by the belief that they have a special status as a leader. At the greatest extreme, the authoritarian leader believes that they are the voice of their followers and that they alone can lead. Or, as Trump put it, “I alone can fix it.” Underlying this is the belief that they possess exceptional skills, knowledge and ability that exceed those of others. Trump has the view of himself and many of his followers agree with him: they accept his claims because he is the authoritarian and they are psychologically inclined to believe what he says because he says it.

There is also the fact that Trump is the (now impeached for the second time) President: even those who might not be authoritarians would be inclined to believe what he says because he is the President. While this is poor logic, it is understandable.

The fact that they also hear the same lies echoed by his enablers reinforces their belief through repetition. While repetition proves nothing, people tend to believe what they hear multiple times. People also tend to believe what they want to be true and reject evidence to the contrary.  His supporters, like most people today, also live in relatively isolated bubbles—dissenting views rarely make it into the bubbles and those that do tend to not survive. Unfortunately for Trump’s supporters (and everyone else), these bubbles are filled with lies.  Combining all these factors provides a preliminary sketch of some of the epistemic defects of Trump supporters and how this helped lead to the assault on the capitol.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Black, White, Left, Right and Blue

by 4 Comments

Incited by their leader, Trump supporters stormed the capital. This event, like the anti-mask protests, provides a clear contrast with the police response to BLM protests. To illustrate, Trump ordered the tear gassing of peaceful protestors for a photo op outside of a church while rioters in the capital were able to take selfies with the police. There was, it must be noted, some violent conflict between the rioters and the defenders of the capitol and people did die. But the overall response of the authorities was to let the mob have its way. Trump, who has called peaceful protestors “thugs”, expressed his love for the capitol rioters. Thus, protests on the left are generally  met with police force and the protestors are often cast as lawless thugs. Protests on the right are often met with police tolerance and the protestors are sometimes regarded as patriots.  There are, of course, exceptions that can shock the “patriots.”

From a moral standpoint, the problem is that just policing requires that people be treated fairly: police response to protests should be consistent and proportional to the violence. This is clearly not the case: protests by the white right are treated one way, protests by the left and minorities are treated another way.

An obvious objection is that I have given but two anecdotes—the church photo op and the storming of the capital. One cannot infer the existence of systemic injustice from two examples. After all, it might just be a few bad apples or some such thing. This objection does raise a reasonable point: general claims about the police require a representative sample. Fortunately, the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) has gathered such a sample and analyzed the data. Those who might dismiss the ACLED with accusations of being anti-police leftists can undertake their own study. They will need to take care to collect a representative sample and avoid various common errors in reasoning to ensure their study is credible.

ACLED originally studied conflicts in African nations, but in 2020 the organization applied its methods to the United States. While the project is ongoing, their findings match what one sees in the videos: the police respond more and more violently to protests on the left (like BLM) than they do to protests on the right (like anti-mask protests).

Between May 1 and November 28, 2020, the authorities were over twice as likely to try to disperse a protest on the left than a protest on the right. When the police did act, they used force 34% of the time when responding to a right-wing protest and 51% percent of the time when responding to a left-wing protest. Combing these, the likelihood that a left-wing protest will be met with police force is significantly greater than the chance a right-wing protest will experience that response. That is, the police are more likely to try to disperse a left-wing protest and are more likely to do so using force. On the face of it, this seems to show that authorities are acting immorally by treating people unfairly.

One reasonable way to counter this claim is to argue that there is a relevant difference between the two types of protests that warrants the disparity. If the left-wing protestors are acting in ways that warrant the disparity, then the police could be acting justly. For example, if left wing protestors are twice as likely to vandalize property and more likely to attack the police when they respond, then the disparity in treatment would be warranted. However, this is not the case.

About 93% of the BLM associated protests were completely peaceful and even these protests were met with a much harsher police response than right-wing protests. While there is a right-wing narrative that BLM protestors are violent thugs and most BLM protests are violent, this is obviously not supported by any evidence. For those who might think that BLM and the left are getting a just response from the police, it is worth examining uncut, unedited video of protests to see the difference between how the police prepare, set up and respond. The police and military tend to be in full combat gear and respond aggressively to protests on the left—even when the protests are peaceful. In contrast, the police tend to stick with their everyday gear and are not very aggressive when addressing right wing protests. This is readily visible on videos taken at such protests. As noted above, right-wing protestors can often take selfies with cooperating police, while the police sometimes shoot rubber bullets and tear gas at journalists covering left wing protests. Thus, the disparity between the responses is not based on a disparity in the behavior of the protestors. After all, peaceful BLM protestors face off against police and military units outfitted for urban combat. Right-wing protestors often feel safe and comfortable enough to take selfies with the police, who are typically in their normal gear. Thus, other factors must be the cause.

Since the BLM protests had significant black involvement (and are obviously about black lives mattering) one likely factor is race. The disparity between how police treat white people and how they treat minorities is significant and well documented. This disparity arises from many causes, ranging from individual racism to unconscious cultural biases. As such, it makes sense why the police would respond more harshly to protests by the left—they are more likely to include minorities than right-wing protests (which tend to consist mostly of white people).

While policing generally favors white people, politics can override race in terms of how the police respond to a protest. An excellent example of this occurred in Chicago, when two police officers attacked a 75-year old white protestor. There were attempts to cast the man as a threat, but these claims were unsubstantiated. As such, the political views of the protestors are also a factor that influences the police response. This is a moral problem because the response of the police to a protest should be based on the actions of the protestors and not on the views they profess.

One possible explanation for some of the disparity is that the police are more likely to disagree with the politics of the left. While police officers can, obviously, be liberal they will generally tend to more conservative than the people protesting at left-wing protests. There is also the fact that many left-wing protests, especially BLM protests, are explicitly protesting the wrongdoings of police. As such, left-wing protestors and the police tend to be in conflict, and this can contribute to the hostile response by the police. This is, however, obviously not justified—the police should not treat citizens based on whether they like or dislike their political views.

In contrast, the right-wing protestors often share ideological beliefs with the police and many right-wingers are very pro-police. It is, of course, human nature to respond more positively to people who agree with you and who claim to support you. An officer who is facing a BLM protestor calling for the police to be defunded will obviously feel different than when they are facing a Trump supporter who is wearing a thin blue line hat. However, this does not morally justify the disparity anymore than it would justify me grading papers based on whether I like the student writing it or not. Professionals are supposed to do their jobs professionally.

Of far greater concern are the ties between some police officers and far-right, white supremacist groups. This connection is nothing new and much of the history of policing in the United States is the history of the state enforcing racism. The enforcement of the laws governing slavery (especially the laws about fugitive slaves) is but the most obvious example. This is not to say that all or even most police are members of these groups—but some are, and the government has generally done little to address this problem. The government has also been very tolerant of the right-wing groups and Trump has been especially friendly with them—seeing them, correctly, as useful tools for his agenda. After all, Trump incited the storming of the capital and then allowed the attack to play out. The relatively small amount of active police resistance was met with surprise and shock. I think this was an honest response. After all, they believed they were acting with the blessing of the President and some officers were extremely accommodating. It can be disconcerting for a right-wing protestor to face police violence in response to their actions: “This is not America,” a woman said to a small group, her voice shaking. “They’re shooting at us. They’re supposed to shoot BLM, but they’re shooting the patriots.” On this view, the police are supposed to respond to protests based on the ideology (and race) of the protestors rather than based on their actions. The injustice of this view is obvious—unless one is a racist fascist like Trump and many of his supporters.

One reason a right-wing protestor can face police violence is that they can, obviously enough, encounter officers who are doing their jobs correctly and do something that warrants the use of force (like smashing through a door at the capital). Another reason is that a right-wing protestor can provoke even sympathetic police with their actions. For example, while some of the police at the capital were clearly friendly with the protestors, they would have likely used force if the protestors tried to attack the Vice President. It must also be noted that right-wingers differ in their views. A right-wing protestor might believe that the existing order must be violently destroyed to bring about their desired fascist utopia, while the right-wing officer confronting them might be ideologically committed to maintaining the existing system.

In closing, the disparity between the general responses to left-wing protests and right-wing protests proves that BLM is correct about the disparity in how people are policed. By responding harshly to peaceful BLM protests and generally tolerating violent right-wing protests the authorities make the case for many of BLM’s key claims.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

%d bloggers like this: