Constitutional Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows

Was anyone shocked at the overreaching force applied on the peaceful Occupy protesters in 2011? I was. It was a data point for me that expediency has taken the place of democracy in some minds (the trains must run on time). Is it possible that it may be time to reset our thinking, to readjust our barometer of just force just a bit?

After WWII, America determined that we would not be subject to another world war. We determined that we would create the most powerful military the world had ever seen. Over time, we determined that it was our duty to the world to use this military for good as we determined it to be. We determined since then to invade 66 of the world’s 197 countries as part of our policy of peace through strength.

Now frankly, after seeing this summary in an instant, I was a bit shocked for that is over a third of the world’s sovereign nations and that is a pretty significant number whatever the cause, whether just or not. Is it odd to me, however, that I find myself over and over seeing the strange bedfellows politics makes. Why is it, for instance, that the same people who would normally be complaining about how the U.S. government has overreached in its policies that suggest invading 66 sovereign nations is a good thing (whether for good cause or not), but that these same people would vehemently argue the sentiment that it is simply an impossibility that this same country, the one that might have been a tad bit rough on peaceful occupy demonstrators, could ever possibly overreach in its own backyard?

Is it possible that they could not even conceive an inkling of a thought that the second amendment is justifiable under the circumstances? Or is it more likely that two party politics just makes strange bedfellows? Why is it that logic cannot prevail? Perhaps it is because logic, if applied within the construct of presidential elections every four years, cannot develop a 50% coalltion.

Police Restraint Will Mitigate Future Violence

In the greater realm of civil defense, homeland security, terror response, community and business continuity, and government continuity, the agencies of Homeland Security, Emergency Management, and Emergency Response have a role to play in government response to civil unrest. Certainly in mass riots that have occurred in Europe as a response to announced austerity programs, similar agencies have been involved internationally in heightened government alert.

The level of unrest to which Europe may eventually rise is yet unknown, but will emerge as the Euro Zone continues to unravel. While no-one expects countries in Europe to experience anything like what occurred in Northern Africa during the Arab Spring, Europe is nonetheless preparing for much worse events than have occurred thus far.

With this in mind, what is the size of the potential threat of civil unrest in America and what can be done through standard emergency management procedures of mitigation and preparation to reduce the likelihood of such unrest, and to prepare for adequate and proper response in the event that unrest occurs? The answer lies in determining what is the engine of unrest, how long will it persist, what outlets citizens will have for expressing their will, and what capabilities Americans will have to exercise their right of assembly in their democracy. My contention is that the answer also lies in the interplay of how authorities respond to these potential threats to civility.

As opposed to the Tea Party, in which demonstrations were more focused and directed toward political ends, this Occupy Wall Street movement seems to have deliberately steered from organized politics which it sees as part of the problem, and has instead has attempted to develop a ground swell of crowd democracy. As a result, sit-in contemporaneous councils of discussion are occurring to self discover over time the movement’s consensus of thought. This free form democracy has been seen as Anarchist or Marxist by some and thus a potential threat to civilized democracy.

America is being inundated with media that sensationalizes this less disciplined, less organized, and seemingly less responsible way of thinking. Certainly, it irritates hard working Americans to see what appear to be Anarchists disrupting traffic, shutting down businesses, harming commerce, damaging public and private property, defecating and urinating in public and the like. And just as it concerns the average citizen, it can also dislodge sensibilities of those responsible for managing crowd response.

However, when authoritative response becomes, or is perceived as becoming excessive, it feeds into the unrest. Responses such as these on the following links are now feeding into the Occupy Wall Street movement and are having the opposite effect of their intent. Rather than quelling the immediate throngs of crowds, they are feeding not only into the short term swells but are turning many otherwise passive citizens into supporters of Occupy Wall Street and potential participants in later demonstrations and clashes that could turn riotous or even deadly.

Oakland flash grenade
Police shoot demonstrator in face
Unprovoked a cameraman is shot
Bloody Occupy demonstrator
Police massive pepper spray abuse
Police brutality of students
Female protesters penned and maced
Oakland Protest war zone
Police give protester concussion
Police runs over protester
Police crackdown of veterans
Marine rants against Police brutality

In response to witnessing the initial “inappropriate” government actions, I felt it important to lay out an easily digestible context for why civil disobedience is now occurring:

http://jobvoucherplan.com/2011/11/19/i-just-want-my-american-dream-back-a-conversation-from-1981-to-2011-revised/

My post is intended to mitigate the inundation of media hype and to place a human face on Occupy Wall Street. The movement no doubt has elements of Marxism and Anarchism within its ranks that some would find disconcerting. However, the more important and much more voluminous face of Occupy Wall Street is a disenfranchised America that has lost its voice and is attempting to find it through peaceful assembly.

With a deeper understanding of the nature of those that will increasingly fill the ranks of Occupy Wall Street, perhaps leaders in positions to determine the proper response to demonstrations will be able to redirect their forces from using tactics that appear to have overreached, and to begin to use less agitating responses that could mitigate their potential of igniting a chain of human events that might exponentially erupt into later riots and destruction as the crisis in America peaks.