The Washington Post’s lead editorial takes New York City officials to taks, mildly, for how they’ve handled security for the upcoming Rebublican National Convention. The editors say, in part:
Terrorism fears are legitimate, and some of the protest groups include people with histories of violent behavior at demonstrations. The First Amendment does not give protesters the right to disrupt proceedings. Certain restrictions are necessary and appropriate.
But something precious is threatened when demonstrators — even rowdy, obnoxious and possibly misguided demonstrators — are kept at such distance from the objects of their protest. What’s at risk is democracy, and it deserves a bit more respect. As has been widely noted, the parties now try to shape their conventions as extended infomercials, in which the forms of party process are playacted to validate preordained results. City police should not be deployed in a fashion that ensures that the infomercials do not suffer from any technical glitches, unruly moments or dissonant voices. This may not be the intent of the security measures, but marginalizing dissent is the effect. Somehow, even in an era of terrorism, America needs to do better.
I believe the editors miss the point completely. New York officials aren’t concerned overly about “people with histories of violent behavior”. They are concerned with people who are at this moment advocating violent behavior and people who plan to direct their behavior directly at law enforcement and security assets. We’re not talking about groups that just want to march up and down the street carrying placards and wearing giant paper-mache heads. These are groups who proudly say they want to get Madison Square Garden evacuated.
So New York City officials have seen this information and are deciding that it’s better to be more cautious than less. Good for them. That exactly what I pay my public officials to do – not to be cavalier with my safety. The WaPo is dead wrong on this and, I suspect, ill-informed. Democracy is never poorly served by keeping ammonium nitrate-soaked idiots far away from police dogs trained to discover bombs.
Unfortunately, the peaceful protestors can’t even manage the courage to condemn their own. I’ve caught the Sean Hannity radio show the last two days and he’s interviewed representatives from three leading protest groups. His question to them is simple: will you, speaking for your group, condemn the calls to violence that other protest groups have made so far? Not a one of them has given an unequivocal “yes”. The closest I heard was a lady yesterday who said something like, “Our group does not partake in peaceful protest and I hope that everyone would do as we do, but, well, sometimes people get desperate and who knows the kind of things that could happen if the authorities push these people into desperation”. Weasel words when a simple, “Do not protest violently, no matter what” would have actually earned some respect. But it’s not about respect, is it? It’s about making your point come hell or high water, no matter the method and no matter the reaction. Just yell your thought as loudly as possible – enjoying the first part of your First Amendment rights – and give no further thought to what your results your actions may have – the seldom-considered second part of your First Amendment rights.
That is, more and more, the true American Way.
