Thu, June 22, 2023 | By John Schroeder
government is force
There were violent riots in the former California hometown. The violence occurred outside of school board meetings and was due to the forced teaching of LGBTQ materials in schools. Said the school board president: “She went on to say that while everyone is entitled to their own opinions, ‘no one has the right to threaten, intimidate, harass another person.’ I completely agree with that, and yet you miss a more important point.
The people who protest feel, if they don’t know, that the government, in the form of the schools, is in fact threatening, harassing, and harassing them by training their children in ways and on topics that they do not want them to be trained at. If there is no general consensus on something, making something happen by force of law or regulation is little more than threats, intimidation, and harassment. When the government resorts to force, rather than consensus, a violent response can certainly be expected and might be reasonable.
On Monday I wrote about how taking, with the use of government force, from one party and simply giving it to another was not fair. In 2020 I wrote about how brutal and blunt liberals had become and how continuing to escalate this use of brute force to obtain their social and cultural goals could result in actual war.
Now, of course, the simple application of the law is the strength of the government. It’s not that the government should never use force. The problem is that we increasingly confuse what is legal and illegal with what is right and what is wrong. The problem is that we are increasingly asking the government to act in areas of our society where the government should not tread. Which means we are increasingly using force where persuasion should be used. When force is used instead of persuasion, violence is inevitable. In the minds of the violent, they are not the initiators of the violence, they simply respond in the same way. Everyone knows that self-defense is a justification for killing someone, and that is exactly what these protesters feel: that they are acting in self-defense.
The Founders recognized this, having fought a revolutionary war over such things. They severely limited the power of the federal government precisely to prevent a repeat of the circumstance. But our state and local governments often lack such inherent restrictions. As the story progressed, the locals came to behave more and more in accordance with the kind of restrictions placed on the federal government because the wisdom of those restrictions was more and more evident. However, the left has used that lack of restraint as a foot in the door to push through its agenda without building a consensus. This trend exploded during the pandemic and is a hard tool to stop using.
There’s a reason the Founders didn’t originally abolish slavery in the Constitution: there was no consensus on it. Ending slavery by government force at that point in history would have meant there was no nation. History demonstrated his wisdom, despite the Civil War.
I think the time has come for the left to take a step back. If they have law and justice on their side, as the anti-slavery forces did, time and history will take care of the matter. Continuing to press the issue with government force can only result in increased violence.
APPENDIX: The Democratic response to the Schiff censure is remarkable, particularly in light of Durham’s testimony. It is now unquestionably evident that there was nothing on Trump/Russia. It cannot be debated. Schiff forced, again I say forced, this nation to endure a trial by the media using the tools of a legislature that was built on a fabric of lies and innuendo. He seized the Chamber and the media for purely partisan political purposes that serve neither justice nor governance.
The former California hometown with which this publication opened is represented, in large part, by Adam Schiff. To my eternal sorrow, he was my congressman for many years. Needless to say, I campaigned for his opponents, especially Jim Rogan. However, an issue arose where an industry organization asked me, as their constituent, to approach them on an issue that was not partisan at all. They needed to put a very small spending proposal on the House floor and Schiff’s committee assignments at the time made it seem like a logical choice. To say that I was rejected is putting it lightly. Curiously, a week later, he had the matter on the floor through a Democrat known in another state. Schiff declined to act on an issue that would have been a feather in his cap based on purely partisan considerations. He is a partisan hack of the highest order.
The violence in that former hometown is even more predictable when you consider that a large portion of voters in Schiff’s district are unheard, dismissed simply because Schiff’s office doesn’t perceive them as an ally. This is also a form of strength. In such circumstances, differing opinion not only loses the vote, but is ignored, if not ridiculed. So violence seems reasonable simply as a means to gain voice.
We are standing on a precipice.