The purpose of the rules wasn’t to prevent police violence; it was to make it clear that the violence was one-sided. Getting the police to crack the skull of a clearly non-violent non-resisting non-aggressive protester was a win.
“We will not run” came up as much during retreat as advance. Responding to riot tactics (water cannon, horses, dogs, shield walls, tear gas, etc) by, at most, calmly walking away…and, usually, getting mown down in the process.
They weren’t just rules for peaceful protest; they were rules for peaceful martyrdom. Back when that was a concept that brought to mind anti-nuke pacifist Catholic nuns, rather than the current explosive associations of the term.
As I suggested upthread, these tactics are only useful in some circumstances. Historically, peaceful protest has not been particularly successful at halting large fascist movements. Get a sufficient mass of shitheads in your society, and there doesn’t seem to be any better solution than “skeggǫld, skálmǫld, skildir ro klofnir!”.
Oh I see. I really admire the philosophy, but I am willing to run if it might prevent police violence. I guess I’m just saying that #5 is the one that requires weighing such factors in the moment.
No criticism intended; I doubt that Abalone tactics would work in the current situation. As mentioned, they rely upon having an opponent who is embarrassed by having their use of one-sided violence exposed.
Trump’s crew would most likely just interpret passive non-violent resistance as contemptible weakness.
The NYT, Guardian and WaPo reported Chicago as a criminal disturbance on Drumpf’s watch.
The GOP also called Drumpf to account for the violence at his rallies resulting from Drumpf’s language. Rubio and Kassich both hedged whether they would support Drumpf if he is the GOP nominee.
So … Drumpf really needed the narrative to continue to be that criminals broke up my rally. And if there’s any place he needs that to be true, it’s in states like Illinois.
He didn’t get what he needed today. And by now the GOP is probably worrying about violence at its own convention.
I do think there’s a positive note, which is: it happened with the group of, I think around 50, muslim UIC students who were there, inside the arena. And similar numbers of people of color generally and latinos and others (UIC community includes an awful lot of targets of Trump-brand hate), there to protest amidst a much larger crowd of Trump supporters. For him to have come out, and the rally to continue, they would have to have all been removed, in a way that’s visible to the press and likely to escalate badly. The street stuff is not like that. So they stopped it, and that was heroic.
…unless Trump never intended to show up, and deliberately manufactured the situation to generate the “street stuff” so that he could use it to spin a “radical leftists try to violently silence Trump” narrative.
I’m not sure if I buy that, but that’s the theory that Rachel Maddow was suggesting.
… hrmm. Even at your discounted second-hand price, I’m not buying. Although it sounds like it could become a possibility in the future, if he continues to try to hold similar rallies in similar places.
WaPo is reporting that even GOP leaders feel forced to assign some blame to Drumpf for his campaign’s Chicago fail.
… Trump’s Republican rivals, however, blame him. Ohio Gov. John Kasich on Saturday morning condemned Trump for creating a “toxic environment” that has led supporters and protesters to “come together in violence.” And Sen. Marco Rubio called on Trump to denounce the violence and questioned whether if he could support Trump as the GOP nominee if his rhetoric did not change. …
Ah crap. got beaten to the punch! Damn you Enso! and your all knowing oneness with the universe!
But you want to know the weird thing? It’s almost like the guy who is running for the highest office of the land has absolutely no idea wtf is actually in the constitution… (and yes, I realize that that may play in his favor as the last guy (who tRump’s base got all worked up over) was a constitutional lawyer)
He’s very serious in a sense that counts a lot: it looks likely that he’ll win the nomination of one of our two major parties. Another reason, which may well account for the first one: “If it bleeds, it leads.”
He’s got a couple policies on his website (though, to be honest, I’m not sure they represent his actual views or have anything to do with him). They’re mostly unworkable nonsense. Occasionally he gives the rough outline of a policy, but he tends to undermine those by contradicting himself - sometimes within the same statement.
