Other than my constant gratefulness for having no spawn of my own, few things give me more satisfaction than thinking about the upcoming Democratic National Convention. Not for the screaming crowds of zombies or the Hopey Changey feel-good pablum dribbling from the mouths of politicians, nor for the vapid news coverage or the sickening blogger evaluations of message consistency or brand marketing or whatever the hell mainline liberals talk about in order to avoid having to face up to the rotten, yawning void of a party that they somehow have to believe represents an actual Left.No, the joy for me will be (I hope) the uncomfortable tension caused by the presence of protesters, and how this undermines (again, I hope) the two-party paradigm that serves as the bedrock for the religion of The Process. The media will certainly go out of its way not to discuss the identities and ideologies comprising the protester contingent at the DNC, because once you start questioning who is protesting the Democrats, impolite cans of worms start popping open.
The few stories I’ve seen so far discussing the massive police measures (assisted by a $50 million federal grant) being planned are vague about why such measures are required, referencing only the supposed need to “protect” the politicians and delegates. If the MSM does venture to discuss the purposes of the protesting hordes, they’ll probably represent the bulk of activity as being in the name of environmentalism.
We can start broadly. Will Republicans be protesting the DNC? No. They’re quite happy with the progress they’ve made with a Dem-controlled congress, thank you very much. Liberals (real liberals) will be protesting the DNC, and oddly, real liberals will also be protesting the RNC. Yes, one faction will be protesting the conventions of both parties. There’s obviously some imbalance here. Why on earth would the Left be protesting a party that claims to be pro-Constitution, anti-war, anti-torture, anti-surveillance, anti-corruption, etc.? Very simply, because the Democrats don’t actually embody any of those ideals. When they claim they do, they are lying. And some people know this.
If this skewed situation alone doesn’t make a sleepwalker realize that something is not quite right with the “two” party system, nothing will. There are clearly significant constituencies that are not represented in American politics, and one of the bigger of these is the Left. The Left is even worse off now than they were before the 2006 Dem takeover. Explain that, liberals. Actually, please don’t; I’ve heard it all.
The liberal Huffington Post posted an effective article by John W. Whitehead a few days ago entitled “A Free Speech Graveyard at the Democratic National Convention.” The article points out:
Democrats face the embarrassing possibility that they will be the only party actually caging dissenters. Protesters at the upcoming Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Denver in late August will be corralled into caged "free speech zones" made of chicken wire and chain link fences which are located more than two football fields from the delegates' entrance. Those who attempt to exercise their First Amendment rights outside this makeshift cage, which is partially obscured by trees and sculptures, will be arrested. (Ironically, protesters at this year's Republican National Convention will not face a cage or even policemen in riot gear.)
It doesn’t take a constitutional lawyer to discern that the establishment of “free speech zones” equals nothing less than the elimination of the right to free speech afforded us under the First Amendment. Further reinforcing the point, these zones fittingly capture that concentration camp feel. Whitehead discusses the protester pens from the 2004 convention:
The 2004 DNC in Boston utilized such a camp, with surveillance cameras to record the individuals inside the cage. Conditions were so appalling that U.S. District Court Judge Douglas P. Woodlock referred to the designated protest zone as a "grim, mean, and oppressive space," which had the overall feel of an "internment camp.
He goes on to quote the reaction from someone who spent time in the 2004 camp:
…do NOT go inside. It's not only a blatant offense to free speech, but also highly dangerous and unsafe. I would suggest protesting anywhere in Boston but inside of it. No amount of hyperbole can accurately describe how disastrous the interior actually is. It's like a scene from some post-apocalyptic movie - a futuristic, industrial detention area from a Mad Max film. You are surrounded on all sides by concrete blocks and steel fencing, with razor wire lining the perimeter. Then, there is a giant black net over the entire space.
As Saint Obama is coronated, protesters will be stared down by gangs of riot cops dressed in black and armed with pepper bullets. As Obama is cheered by a stadium of 75,000 somnambulists under fireworks, protesters will be running from miasmic clouds of tear gas (Freedom gas?).
You exercise your First Amendment rights to free speech and free assembly, you get arrested (if you survive the takedown). Societies wherein police can arrest citizens regardless of law are called police states. It is public policy that when martial law (a central aspect of Continuity of Government operations; an interesting discussion of whether COG is currently in effect here) is declared, it will entail the suspension of the constitution. Well, we already have that part, obviously. Additionally, intelligence agencies have a long track record of provocateuring events (that is, staging violence in order to justify a harsh crackdown), and there is evidence to believe that such methods will be employed in Denver. Those ol’ boys like a fight.
But they better not get into too big a brawl; the collapsing paradigm that could result would threaten to knock the stars out of some credulous eyes.
No comments:
Post a Comment