01-06-2017, 01:37 AM
(12-28-2016, 08:10 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:(12-28-2016, 07:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: That's a big danger. In the past violence by some on the Left has brought about reaction and repression. Law and order is necessary to allow protests like ours. Of course, the Drumpf government is likely to repress non-violent protests.
The Martin Luther King approach is to respond to brute force with soul force. It can work, and arouse support for the cause, as long as the brute force of the government does not become as brutal as that of dictators like Assad. It's a question of how far the Drumpf government will go in cracking down on us. They may see it as to their advantage to crack down hard, if they feel the public supports them, and if Dumb Drumpf can drum up support for it. I suspect violence by the protesters would be harder as well, in that case.
Non-violent protest is the right way to go. It worked against segregationism and Ku Kluxism in the 1960s in America well enough that people in Commie states used it in the 1980s. Armed resistance is the wrong way to go.
We have an advantage this time: in the big cities a Bull Connor is unlikely to loose dogs or fire water cannons at peaceful protesters. This may be to the consternation of some State governors, but that is their problem and not ours. We also have cameras and camcorders. We can put our media on the Internet for all to see. We can also supply video of misconduct by rioters and attackers to law enforcement and the courts. At the least we can be fair. We are for human rights and law and order -- at that there is no conflict.
Fortunately most of the protests will be in cities, which are mostly blue governed. At some point Drumpf might call out the national guard and federalize the police for his "politically incorrect" crackdown, and then all bets are off. But unless and until that happens, protesters will be relatively safe in blue states and their cities, at least.