What is a riot in a pandemic?
After but a few weeks of the covid-19 pandemic, the positions of the political parties had become apparent. Those who worship at the alter of science (whether or not they know the difference between a null hypothesis and a test tube) tended to rejoice at the arrival of a virus that could shut down an historically strong economy. They did not want to see a strong economy at election time and their hearts were cheered when they found a reason (Covid-19) to support shutting down the economy. Some governors were willing to put the constitution on hold in deciding who could continue to exercise their normal, constitutional rights. One could still get an abortion, one could still loot and riot, but one could not endanger the community by worshiping, for example, even if one stayed in a car and wore a mask. Our national judicial leader even pronounces religion to be a mere “social activity,” subject to being shut down by health-conscious Democratic governors.
In California and other places, one may lose the right to go to a beach or a church. But did you hear one Democratic governor complain about the failure to practice social distancing at either the peaceful protests or the riots that followed on the heels of the virus? Of course, the difference is one of social necessity or social luxury. Abortions and looting are apparently viewed by some governors as socially necessary activities.
What should we learn from military leaders, current and former, about abstaining from the use of our military to quell insurrection?
Military leaders may speak out against deploying our military in domestic situations because
a. They don’t want our soldiers put in harm’s way.
b. They want a peaceful world rather than a violent one.
c. They want to save taxpayers money.
d. They love peace and decry war.
e. They believe the American media, the Deep State, the political resistance and the loathing media are trying to achieve American unity. Military protection of lives and property would serve to enable the president in his quest to divide the American people.
f. They don’t want our proactively political youth to attend Sunday School next week with any bruises or bandages.
g. They are frustrated because Senator Bernie Sanders failed to secure the Democratic nomination for the 2020 presidential election.
The list could go on; It is hard to know what is really in people’s hearts when they make political statements. Our unofficial Acting Commander-in-Chief and Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, felt that the nationwide rioting was not a sufficient threat to make the use of American troops necessary in the 2020 riots. I think most people who do not disdain law and order agree that that action should be taken only as a last resort.
Putting aside the Esper perspective, we are fortunate that we still know what to do regarding the national military leadership. After all, we have our constitution, a model for democracies around the world. We are a Democratic Republic with the established governance principles and laws of the Constitution. We are not governed by the vagaries of the rule of men, which feature arbitrary laws. Such subjective laws are established, for example, by tyrannical powers in violation of democratic principles. Such rule can even be imposed by leaders who are elected by deceiving voters, promising to give them what they want. Nor does the constitution foresee governance by a military junta or dictatorship. So it is to be highly recommended that the military types inclined to lecture the president hold their tongues and support civilian leadership. If they like the alternative governance model, our unelected military leaders might consider residence in Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, or China. Unfortunately, the selection of tyrannical domiciles is somewhat limited by the repeated failure and subsequent disappearance of socialism in so many countries.
Should we defund police departments?
An amazing number of activists have expressed the view that the way to enhance the lives of our colored communities is not to seek a way to eliminate the small share of public servants who suffer from bigotry, but to eliminate the public servants who respond to our 911 telephone calls and who have the potential power to stop city-center populations from self-elimination. The more moderate view of “defunding the police” is simply to reduce the resources available for the police to solve growing law-enforcement problems, but there are actually a good number of activists who really do want to see police departments disappear.
So that rioters need not be troubled with the possibility of being arrested, and so that police officers will no longer have the opportunity to kill blacks (incidentally, have you ever checked to see how many white people they have killed?), socialists are now demanding that police departments should be eliminated. That would save taxpayers money, of course, although we might have to increase the number of firefighters inordinately. (Sorry, it slipped my mind that Democrats have an answer for the problem of arson too: “let it burn!”) In any case, defunding police could save money on 911 operators. One could simply install a 911 recording saying: “Sorry! Emergencies have now been disclassified. Have a nice day!”