Legitimate?
When Henry II of England was establishing what became the Common Law system in his realm in the twelfth century there was no doubt that assault and trespass were causes for action in the courts. Anyone viewing the video of the US Capitol on January 6, 2020 would not have to be a law enforcement officer or a lawyer to recognize the assault and trespass that took place. There was no discourse, political or otherwise, and it definitely was not legitimate. Blood was spilled and property was damaged. Calls for lynching or shooting public officials are not part of “legitimate political discourse”.
If you’re going to do Hitler 2.0, you need better speech writers and decent set designers. Also, find a more charismatic leader who is at least able to read the speeches and not wander into a fantasy world of non sequiturs and petty grievances.
3 comments
meh… civil disobedience ( and even to some extent, uncivil disobedience, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/#UnDis ) *is* legitimate political discourse.
summoning a bunch of people who innocently thought they were coming to a legitimate protest and using them as cover for the violent overthrow of a democratically elected government… that’s a whole nother can of worms and i, for one, am cautiously optimistic that both doj and the jan6 committee seem to not be wasting an inordinate amount of effort on the small fry.
and of course the republicans only consider disobedience, civil or not, to be legitimate political discourse when it’s the people on their side doing it; iokiyar, part one million eleventy elven.
It helps if you are being disobedient to an unfair law or process, rather than a free and fair election. I would support civil/uncivil disobedience over laws that prevent people from exercising their right to vote. Even then violence, looting and destruction of property doesn’t help your cause.
Yep! 👍