Kit's Thoughts On Black Friday Ferguson Protests

by Kit

The decision of the Ferguson grand jury to not indict was announced and events unfolding in Ferguson as many expected they would. The only difference was on the extent of the damage. On Twitter I saw the Left also behave predictably to the events; Darren Wilson was a guilty racist scumbag and if you think the jury’s verdict was the right one based on the evidence at hand then you are not merely a racist but an evil and deplorable human being without even the slightest ounce of basic decency and not worth the slightest bit of respect. Away with thee! Away!

This and proclaiming #BlackLivesMatter while responding to the riots in Ferguson that destroyed 12 buildings (some black-owned businesses) and thoroughly trashed others (many also black-owned) in a town of 21,000 (over 60% black) with attitudes ranging from timid criticism to implied support to explicit praise.

But what was interesting was the Black Friday Boycott. Aside from a few references in the news, this was largely ignored outside of the greater St. Louis area, to which Ferguson belongs. But the boycott did garner attention, largely because it forced 3 St. Louis malls to close early. Now a question might cross a few people’s minds: Why Black Friday and why target shopping malls? Well, the answer will probably not surprise you but it is worth exploring simply because it reveals something about protesting in the modern era, the Left in the modern era, and a possible opening for the Right.

They know that despite the huge flare-up of riots in Ferguson and protests across the rest of the country that as soon as the fires in those 12 buildings went out and the National Guard restored order to the town that the country and the world would move on to other things. And right now there is no shortage of news with Obama’s immigration edict the continuing insanity in Iraq, a possible nuclear surrender agreement with Iran, (sort of) withdrawal from Afghanistan, Ebola still killing, etc. That means they have to keep attention on Ferguson and the death of Michael Brown. And in order to do that they must maintain the momentum of the protests.

Here is where they face their conundrum, even if they do not see it. In order to maintain momentum they must keep attention to the protests. But in order to keep attention on the protests they must keep it relevant. That means they must carry out protests that will garner attention through the news media; the protests must be newsworthy. So they use tactics that will garner attention, make their protests newsworthy and annoy everyone else.

Tactics such as calling for people to boycott Black Friday by tweeting “Don’t Shop. Join the Movement”, interrupting Black Friday shopping by lying on the ground and clapping, or marching through the corridors holding their hands up and shouting “Don’t Shoot!” in a place where the gun most likely to shoot them is a nerf gun. In Oakland this meant protestors chaining themselves to train cars in West Oakland and in San Francisco vandalizing a Bank of America and a news van. This means, of course, means arrests and, most importantly, dramatic footage for the nightly and 24-hour news shows.

To a person organizing protests this is good. It gets attention. However, it also annoys everyone else and unlike the Civil Rights boycotts and sit-ins where the tactics they used and targets they picked had a direct connection to the policies they were fighting these protestors have only made rather vague “symbolic” connections. The Montgomery Bus boycotters could argue that if the Montgomery transit company does not like the hit they can integrate and the boycott will end. Don’t like the nuisance of arresting people for engaging in sit-ins? Integrate.

Here? There is no such connection. It has the basic appearance of a desperate appeal for attention. The organizers and protestors themselves have admitted its purpose is to “raise awareness” for their cause. When someone says their goal is “raising awareness” it reminds me of Spielberg’s quote about the sad state of modern filmmaking, “People have forgotten how to tell a story. Stories don't have a middle or an end any more. They usually have a beginning that never stops beginning.”

Raising awareness is a beginning that never stops beginning. You can raise awareness until doomsday and never get one step closer to reaching your goal. This is because when you march under the banner of “raising awareness” it means you have no goal or plan other than grabbing attention for your cause. And soon, people will see that you have no plan and they will get tired of your constant grabs for attention. Eventually they will simply stop caring. That is if your pointless tactics and lack of any real accomplishment don’t start annoying the crap out of everyone else. This was the fate of the Occupy Movement when even liberal college students realized that their “revolution” consisted of noting more than slowing traffic to a crawl and defecating in public parks.

But don’t expect the far left to realize this for two main reasons. First, “Raising awareness” has one major benefit: You can feel good about yourself without actually accomplishing anything. You don’t even need to work hard on developing a plan. Just “raise awareness” and you are “doing something”. Second, the very pointlessness of the strategy also allows the Left and race-baiters to keep playing their divisive games that accomplish nothing except filling the coffers with donations.

A person deeply concerned about the issue of police militarization but wise might attempt to point out that a number of whites have been killed by possibly trigger-happy cops (such as the Tosh.0 producer), that an over-militarized police force may impact blacks disproportionately now but, if not stopped, will eventually spread like a cancer to the rest of America. He then may point to William F. Buckley’s favorite phrase “Government can't do anything for you except in proportion as it can do something to you” and the old axiom, “Power corrupts”. He might even point to the “crackdowns” on lemonade stands of a few years back and SWAT teams hitting homes of people late on their student loans. This is a libertarian argument heard even in conservative circles prior to the Ferguson verdict.

But this would run counter to the argument of the race-baiting Left who wants to present an argument based solely on victimhood and blacks as victims of an inherently racist system. To claim that over-militarization of the police might eventually effect white (and other non-black) Americans would mean admitting the system is not as racist as they claimed. It would mean admitting that the issue is not primarily race but the size and reach of government.

So they will continue to “raise awareness” with tactics that only tick off locals trying to go about their daily business. When said locals complain their reply will be a variance of “If you are not with us, you are against us” argument, perhaps accusing them of “valuing property over people” or, if they are black, of “internalizing racism”. And, ultimately, they will self-destruct. It will be slow but it will happen.

If Conservatives are smart this will open the door for them to address this issue in a reasonable and rational manner that balances the need of liberty from the state and the need of security from the criminal. Not only would it allow Republicans, as Rand Paul has pointed out, to score votes among some black voters (some) but allow Republicans to make an effective case for limited government by placing this issue within the larger context of big government by pointing to the dangers of police militarization in an era of over-criminalization.

Rand Paul should not be the only Republican politician talking about this.