Wednesday, September 2, 2020

We Didn't Start the Fire

I was recently challenged on my dual assertions that 1) the rioting and violence in “Democrat-run cities” is NOT directly related to the Black Lives Matter protests, and 2) the real violent perpetrators are right wing zealots and opportunists. I realized, to my chagrin, that I had not fully researched my claims; therefore my arguments were unsupported. There was nothing for it but to dive into the deep end of the news cycle and swim around until I had a broader understanding of protest-related violence.

To be clear, I was NOT asking “Has there been violence and looting?”, nor "Is there a history of dangerous systemic racism in this country?", nor “Do BLM protestors have a right to be angry?”. The answer to all of the above is a resounding “Yes.” Instead, I focused on the equally complex question, “Who is responsible for the violence at the protests?”

I focused on news sources deemed most reliable by Ad Fontes Media, generally avoiding opinion and bias from the likes of Fox News, MSNBC, Daily Beast, or OAN. What follows are the key points I discovered, along with supporting news articles and summary notes for each article.

So, who is responsible for the violence at the protests? EVERYONE.

KEY POINTS:

  1. Both Biden and Trump have denounced the violence at the protests. Biden condemned violence on both the left and right, but Trump specifically blames leftwing extremist groups. Biden has also condemned Trump for refusing to condemn his own supporters who act as an armed militia.
  2. Most Black Lives Matter protests have been peaceful. However, many people perceive the protests as violent despite the commitment of demonstrators to remain non-violent.
  3. Although most protests are peaceful, there has definitely been documented violence from protesters.
  4. Violence at the protests has been primarily due to gangs, local groups, and extremists across the political spectrum, not the protesters.
  5. There is no evidence linking Antifa or any other organized left-wing movement to the violence and riots.
  6. Right-wing extremist groups and various opportunists have incited violence online, often disguising themselves as Antifa.
  7. Right-wing extremist group have been directly involved in violence at protests.
  8. Protests are now becoming more violent with armed groups on both sides of political spectrum fighting each other.
  9. Police response can exacerbate the situation and turn protests violent.
  10. Self-styled militia have exacerbated the violence, often with the tacit approval of authorities.
  11. Trump’s rhetoric is inciting violence.


Both Biden and Trump have denounced the violence at the protests. Biden condemned violence on both the left and right, but Trump specifically blames leftwing extremist groups. Biden has also condemned Trump for refusing to condemn his own supporters who act as an armed militia.

  • Biden condemns violence and asks if Americans 'really feel safe under Donald Trump' (August 31, 2020; CNN)
    • “The deadly violence we saw overnight in Portland is unacceptable. Shooting in the streets of a great American city is unacceptable. I condemn this violence unequivocally,” Biden said in a lengthy statement. “I condemn violence of every kind by anyone, whether on the left or the right. And I challenge Donald Trump to do the same.”
    • "I want to be very clear about all of this: Rioting is not protesting. Looting is not protesting. Setting fires is not protesting. None of this is protesting. It's lawlessness, plain and simple. And those who do it should be prosecuted," Biden said. "Violence will not bring change, it will only bring destruction. It's wrong in every way."
    • Biden also condemned Trump, whose armed supporters have been involved in violent clashes with protesters, saying his refusal to call on his own supporters to "stop acting as an armed militia in this country shows how weak he is."
  • Trump blames leftwing extremist groups or instigating looting and violence (September 1, 2020; Washington Post)
    • “Reckless, far-left politicians continue to push the destructive message that our nation and our law enforcement are oppressive or racist.”

Most Black Lives Matter protests have been peaceful. However, many people perceive the protests as violent despite the commitment of demonstrators to remain non-violent.

Although most protests are peaceful, there has definitely been documented violence from protesters

  • Fact Check: How Violent Are the Portland Protests? (July 28, 2020; New York Times)
    • The crowds have been largely peaceful and have included high school students, military veterans, off-duty lawyers and lines of mothers who call themselves the “Wall of Moms.”
    • NYT has documented that some protesters have thrown rocks, water bottles and fireworks at federal officers. Others have shone lasers at federal agents and at security cameras surrounding the building, in an effort to block their view of the crowd. Several fires have been set near the courthouse, which federal officials have said could spread to the building and harm the agents inside.
    • Some protesters in Seattle lit several construction trailers on fire at a youth detention center, smashed windows of businesses and, according to the police, injured Seattle police officers with explosive devices. The Seattle Police Department released partial body camera video that showed explosions erupting near officers and photographs of cuts and burns suffered by officers that they said were from explosives set off by the protesters.
  • Protests erupt at Portland police building, mayor’s condo (August 29, 2020; AP)
    • Fires set outside a police union building that’s a frequent site for protests in Portland, Oregon, prompted police to declare a riot early Saturday and detain several demonstrators.
    • As officers approached to move demonstrators away from the building and extinguish the fire, objects including rocks were thrown at them, police said. Multiple officers suffered minor injuries, according to the statement.

Violence at the protests has been primarily due to gangs, local groups, and extremists across the political spectrum, not the protesters

There is no evidence linking Antifa or any other organized left-wing movement to the violence and riots.

  • Scant evidence of antifa shows how sweeping the protests for racial justice have become (June 13, 2020; Washington Post)
    • Despite warnings of antifa incursions in scores of cities, there is no evidence linking outbursts of violence to an organized left-wing effort. And those associated with the autonomous groups that went up against far-right figureheads four years ago — and whose roots go back to earlier left-wing causes — say there is no such centralized organization.
    • Federal and local arrest records in dozens of cities make virtually no mention of antifa. Law enforcement officials who had braced for the purported invasion of antifa militants in cities large and small now mostly acknowledge the threat has not appeared.
  • Who caused the violence at protests? It wasn’t antifa. FactChecker. (June 22, 2020;Washington Post)
    • Antifa is a moniker, not a single group with a clear organizational structure or leader. It is a decentralized network of activists who don’t coordinate.
    • Seth G. Jones at the the Center for Strategic and International Studies reviewed protests in more than 140 cities and spoke with U.S. officials within the joint terrorism task force. Most of the violence, Jones said, was committed by “local hooligans, sometimes gangs, sometimes just individuals that are trying to take advantage of an opportunity.”

Right-wing extremist groups and various opportunists have incited violence online, often disguising themselves as Antifa.

Right-wing extremist group have been directly involved in violence at protests

Protests are now becoming more violent with armed groups on both sides of political spectrum fighting each other

Police response can exacerbate the situation and turn protests violent.

Self-styled militia have exacerbated the violence, often with the tacit approval of authorities. President Trump has refused to denounce a vigilante shooter who killed two people in Kenosha.

  • Activists: Militias tolerated, Kenosha protesters arrested (August 29, 2020; AP)
    • Officers in Kenosha watched a group of people fill cans at a gas station, hopped out of black SUVs with guns drawn, shattered van’s passenger side window, pulled a person out, and took 9 members of Riot Kitchen into custody (Seattle-based organization that serves food at demonstrations)
    • “There has been no respect for anybody’s civil rights,” said Isaac Wallner, a 30-year-old Kenosha activist. “It’s been a police free for all. They do whatever they want.”
    • Earlier in the week, sheriff’s deputies shot pepper balls at protesters and arrested them when they failed to quickly leave after being told they were breaking curfew. But officers in an armored vehicle with “Sheriff” on the side were also recorded at night tossing water bottles to men carrying rifles. “We appreciate you guys. We really do,” someone can be heard calling from the vehicle in a video of the exchange.
  • The Thin Blue Line Between Violent, Pro-Trump Militias and the Police (August 28, 2020; The Intercept)
    • In a video that took place before the shooting, Kyle Rittenhouse is seen interacting with law enforcement in an armored vehicle, accepting a bottle of water as thanks for the efforts he and others in a group of armed vigilantes were putting in. An officer in the vehicle says over a loudspeaker: “We appreciate you guys. We really do.”
  • Trump supporters fire paintball pellets at opponents, use bear spray (August 30, 2020; The Standard)
    • The pro-Trump rally’s organizer, who recently coordinated a similar caravan in Boise, Idaho, said in a video posted on Twitter Saturday afternoon that attendees should only carry concealed weapons and the route was being kept secret for safety reasons.
    • Videos from the scene showed sporadic fighting, as well as Trump supporters firing paintball pellets at opponents and using bear spray as counter-protesters threw things at the Trump caravan.
  • Kenosha Shooting Suspect Faces Homicide Charges In Protesters' Deaths (August 27, 2020; NPR)
    • Kyle Rittenhouse, the Illinois teenager accused of shooting and killing protesters in Kenosha, Wis., has been charged with six criminal counts including felony charges of first-degree reckless homicide, first-degree intentional homicide and attempted first-degree intentional homicide.
    • Rittenhouse is accused of killing Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum, a 36-year-old father who leaves behind a fiancĂ©e and young daughter, and wounding Gaige Grosskreutz, a volunteer street medic.

Trump’s rhetoric is inciting violence

  • Former DHS Official: Trump Pouring 'Fuel On The Fire' Of Domestic Extremism (September 2, 2020; NPR)
    • Elizabeth Neumann, former assistant secretary of counterterrorism and threat prevention at DHS and lifelong Republican, reported that Trump is pouring “fuel on the fire” of domestic extremism
    • Trump’s rhetoric has led to increased violence
  • Trump suggests Wisconsin protest murder suspect Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense (September 1, 2020; CBS News)
  • A look back at Trump comments perceived by some as inciting violence (May 30, 2020; ABC News)
    • "When the looting starts the shooting starts.”
    • "These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won't let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!"
    • "LIBERATE MICHIGAN!; LIBERATE MINNESOTA!; LIBERATE VIRGINIA, and save your great 2nd Amendment. It is under siege!"
  • My Words Led to Violence. Now Trump's Are Too (August 6, 2019, Time)
    • Commentary by Rev. Rob Schenck is an evangelical minister and former activist for Operation Rescue and other national anti-abortion groups
  • There are no lone wolves (August 4, 2019, Washington Post)
    • Opinion piece by Juliette Kayyem, a former assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security and faculty chair of the homeland security program at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.
    • "It is too simplistic to blame President Trump and his inflammatory rhetoric for the rise of white-supremacist violence. But that doesn’t mean his language isn’t a contributing factor. Historically, racist ideologies don’t die; Nazism survived World War II, after all. They just get publicly shamed. Communities evolve to isolate once acceptable racism or xenophobia. But they can also devolve back to hate."
    • "Public speech that may incite violence, even without that specific intent, has been given a name: stochastic terrorism, for a pattern that can’t be predicted precisely but can be analyzed statistically. It is the demonization of groups through mass media and other propaganda that can result in a violent act because listeners interpret it as promoting targeted violence — terrorism. And the language is vague enough that it leaves room for plausible deniability and outraged, how-could-you-say-that attacks on critics of the rhetoric."
Posted by at No comments:

Let Talk Messaging

Let’s talk messaging.

NPR recently reported that voter support for Black Lives Matter is decreasing while concerns about rioting and violence is increasing. Even worse, Trump’s message that the rioting is directly related to the peaceful protests is increasingly gaining purchase. A civiqs.com poll showed that support for BLM hit a peak favorability rating in early June, but support has declined since then while opposition has increased. Voters are buying into the message that violence and rioting are directly related to protests against police brutality. Trump even defended Kyle Rittenhouse, suggesting that the 17-year old terrorist “acted in self defense.”

We need a counter message.

How can we assuage John/Jane Q. Public’s fear of violence while still keeping the issue of police brutality and systemic racism front and center? Nuance and ambiguity are the enemies of communication. We need a message that is concise but clear. Something as powerful as “Yes we can” or “Build Back Better” (which I am liking more and more) without the potential for misinterpretation and fearmongering of “defund the police.” We need to send the message that Democrats and Progressives want peace, but not at the expense of a police state. We need to show that the real violent perpetrators are right wing zealots and opportunists.

What do y’all think of the following?

  • #OrderWithoutOppression
  • #StopRightWingViolence

Do they work? Should they be edited/adjusted/scrapped? I want some constructive discussion here on how to perfect the messaging.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, February 6, 2020

Mayor Pete’s Hidden Numbers

Numbers have meaning.

As I sit here, 97% of precincts have reported in on the Iowa Democratic Caucus, and Buttigieg and Sanders won a statistical tie for State Delegate Equivalents or SDEs (Buttigieg 26.2%, Sanders 26.1%). Sanders edged Buttigieg out in second alignment vote totals (Sanders 26.5%, Buttigieg 25.0%). Following the frontrunners in SDEs were Warren (18.2%), Biden (15.8%), and Klobuchar (12.2%). Although many have criticized the Iowa Caucus as 1) not representative of US demographics, and 2) a bizarre non-Democratic system that does not reflect true voter preferences, there is still much to unpack from the results.

  1. The Media doesn’t know how to treat either Sanders or Buttigieg fairly. Although Sanders’ war with the media goes back at least to the 2016 election, Buttigieg is not getting a fair shake either. He is constantly labeled a “moderate” by the media, even though his platform and his constituents belie a much more complex ideology. Bill Mahr, in a recent interview with Mayor Pete, said, “let’s be clear, you’re a progressive. There isn’t a Democrat in this race that isn’t an honest progressive.”

    However, the media can’t bear a political upstart. While both Sanders and Buttigieg claimed some semblance of victory before the official Iowa Caucus tallies were released, Buttigieg, received the lion’s share of criticism for jumping the gun. Buttigieg said, “Because tonight, an improbable hope became an undeniable reality. So we don’t know all the results, but we know by the time, it’s all said and done, Iowa you have shocked the nation. Because by all indications, we are going on to New Hampshire victorious.” Exuberant? Definitely. Presumptuous? Maybe. Disingenuous? A resounding NO. And yet, in consistent tones, the headlines decried his eagerness as braggadocio at best and cheating at worst.

  2. More voters in Iowa see Buttigieg as a viable second choice, bolstering his argument for electability. Although Sanders started out with a higher total vote count, Buttigieg’s numbers went up 3.9% after alignment compared to Sanders’ realignment of 1.8% and Warren’s realignment of 1.7%.
  3. In a representational democracy (such as ours), Buttigieg has an advantage over Sanders of being able to reach a greater swath of Americans. Buttigieg won 58 counties in Iowa, Sanders won 22 counties. Yes, Sanders won a greater share of the popular vote, but in the general election, the question is can he also win the rural areas.
  4. The “gender advantage” of the American electorate favors Buttigieg. In 2016, women made up a greater share of the electorate than men (55% to 45%). Buttigieg did better among women than men (24% vs 21%). Sanders did better among men than women (26% vs 20%). Not surprisingly, Warren also did better among women (18% vs 14%), which will only help her if she can get her overall numbers up. Biden did equally well among men and women (16% vs 16%).
  5. Buttigieg reaches a greater variety of age groups. As expected, Sanders’s voters skewed very young (48% of age 17-29 year olds, 33% of age 30-44, 11% of age 45-64, 4% of age 65+). Biden voters skewed much older (3% of age 17-29, 5% of 30-44, 18% of 45-64, 33% of 65+). Buttigieg and Warren had a much more even spread among age groups. For Buttigieg, the numbers were 19% for 17-29, 23% for 30-44, 26% for 45-64, and 21% for 65+. In the 2016 election, voters age 30-49 made up 30% of the electorate vs. voters age 50-64 who made up 29% of the electorate. We can go round and round on the numbers here, but the key message is that Buttigieg (and Warren) doesn’t only reach a single age group.

Of course, all this number crunching and interpretation is really nothing more than early conjecture As of now, Buttigieg only has 0.46% of the 2,376 delegates needed to win a majority, and the polls have not been terribly kind to him. Much ink has been spilled on Mayor Pete’s difficulty attracting African American voters. Furthermore, the momentum he had hoped to gain with an Iowa win was killed by the horrible screw-up in caucus vote reporting.

Nonetheless, there is deep meaning hidden in the Iowa numbers. With a creative visual arts team, brainy informatics wizards, and some solid campaign messaging, perhaps he can use this to argue a strong case for electability.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)