No Sympathy For John Pike

Over in The Atlantic Alexis Madrigal has an extremely interesting (though unfortunately titled) article that briefly traces the recent history of how protests have been policed in America.  This history runs from using “escalated force” against protesters in the 1960s, to “negotiated management” with protesters in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, to the “Miami Method” that evolved as a result of (i) the 1999 Seattle WTO riots, (ii) the 9/11 attacks, and (iii) 2003 Free Trade of the Americas protest in Miami.

As I’ve recounted here, the 1999 Seattle WTO protests were, in fact, sparked by the Seattle police.  They resulted in both the police chief and the mayor losing their jobs and the city having to pay out about $1.8 million to settle the claims brought against them by citizens whom the police abused.

And I was actually in Miami for the 2003 protests, although I did not take part.  But I recall following the investigation afterward into police overreach that the local independent press reported, and I remember the evidence presented of massive unlawful arrests, routine use of unnecessary force, and undercover police agents provacateur that infiltrated the protesters.

I found Madrigal’s article interesting for two reasons especially.  First, toward the end, he intimates that protest policing methods may be about to evolve again as a result of our now ubiquitous recording technology and social networking sites:

The large-scale deployment of video recording technologies combined with high-speed media diffusion channels have allowed everyone to see what only a tiny number did back in 2003 in Miami.  They are seeing kids getting pepper sprayed and hundreds of protesters getting arrested.  They’re watching police throw flash grenades into groups of American citizens.  These images are coming to them through the same Twitter accounts and Facebook updates that show them photos of their friends’ new babies and the score of the USC game.

While it’s easiest to note the incidents of police violence, the protesters’ cameras also record what’s *not* in the images.  Authorities have long claimed that they were merely battling the “black bloc” of violent anarchists.  But when you look at all these videos, the bogeyman isn’t there.

Instead, it’s a dozen scared kids and a police officer named John Pike spraying them in the face from three feet away.

Second, Madrigal argues for a sympathetic understanding of just why Pike did decide to pepper spray those students:  because that is what current protest policing methods taught him to do, and that “while it’s his finger pulling the trigger, the police system is what put him in the position to be standing in front of those students.” 

But while I understand the point Madrigal is making here, I am a lot less sympathetic toward John Pike than Madrigal wants me to be.  Count me instead as one of the “[m]any . . . calling for Pike’s firing.”  To begin with, regardless of what the current police system taught Pike to do, his behavior is abominable and ultimately he is the one whose finger is on the trigger of that military grade pepper spray with which he’s dousing peaceful college students.

Moreover, if we are in fact looking at the beginning of a change in how protests are policed in this country, then the way to effect that change is for the people who actually engaged in terrible conduct under the old system to suffer consequences for that terrible conduct.  This can only underscore the lesson that brutality by the police will simply no longer be tolerated in our country.

And sure . . . maybe it seems a little unfair to punish people like Pike who might only have been playing under the existing rules of the old system, but what is the alternative?  “Sorry for the police abuse, people, and we’re going to change the rules so that doesn’t happen anymore but nobody who engaged in it is actually going to be punished.”  What are the odds that will get your local cops to change their ways?  I’d say slim to none.

So, sorry, but Pike really should be flushed away.

Gladstone on Crack

If you're not already familiar with Cracked.com then I really recommend you check it out. It is a very, very funny place that has articles like "The Five Smallest Animals That Can Kill You Horribly," or "The Seven Stupidest Reasons People Ever Went to War." I have wasted hours bouncing from article to article, laughing uproariously and picking up extremely interesting and outre factoids.

Anyway, one of the writers there, Gladstone, has a new article up titled "Three Types of Wall Street Protesters Hurting Their Own Cause." Like me, Gladstone is obviously a supporter of the Occupy Movement and, like me, he is worried that it may be sabotaging itself.

As Gladstone explains it, he lives in NYC and has had the opportunity to go to the Occupy Wall Street movement and listen to these people: "Unfortunately, what [] I hear is a lot of people talking about 'fuckin' Corporate America, man' and that's just about it. That is not the refrain of a successful protest." Gladstone then goes on to explain that this is why Martin Luther King, Jr. gave a speech in which he said "I have a dream . . . " and not one in which he said "I have . . . had it up to here with these crackedy ass crackers."

I also particularly liked Gladstone's tiger-at-the-zoo-that-mauls-your-family-to-death analogy. You should definitely click on the link and check it out.

How ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Might Work After All

Well, I’ve spent some more time cruising through the internet and watching the Occupy sister/solidarity sites springing up.  It occurred to me that – all my already avouched pessimism and skepticism notwithstanding – I can foresee at least one way in which this movement may end up actually changing things for the better.  The ironic thing is that, should this occur, it will be in spite – and not because – of the movement itself.

But before I explain how I dimly see a dark and twisted path to potential success, let me give an example of the kinds of things about the Occupy movement that absolutely drive me up the goddamned wall. 

What is 'Occupy Wall Street' Doing?

I cross-posted my critique of Occupy Wall Street's First Official Statement at Daily Kos over the weekend and it generated a good deal of commentary.  The vast majority of comments fell into two groups:  (i) people who agreed that the First Official Statement was not particularly well-crafted, and (ii) people who took exception to my “armchair quarterbacking” and told me that I had to “trust the process.”  Almost nobody defended the Statement itself, though -- instead they ended up defending “the process” that had produced the Statement.

More below the fold.

OWS: The First Official Statement

Well, the Occupy Wall Street protesters released their First Official Statement yesterday.

Before I go any further, let me just say that I am a big supporter of the protest.  If the protesters are doing nothing else, they are at least yelling at the correct villains – the big banks and the financial industry that, as a whole, are most responsible for ushering in the Age of Agony. 

And the OWS protesters are to be congratulated for realizing that in order to draw attention to a cause, to a protest, it is insufficient these days to simply organize a large march/rally and then go home.  That is a one-day event, and is quickly forgotten in the 24/7 news cycle in which we now live.  Occupy Wall Street is forcing the rest of the nation – gradually and unwillingly -- to pay attention to them because they do not intend to make a little noise and then go away, congratulating themselves on “having been heard.”  They plan to stay and be a thorn in the side of those who want the country’s financial elite to continue “business as usual.”

Unfortunately, upon review of OWS’s First Official Statement – and it pains me to say this – I am, ah . . . underwhelmed.  Your mileage, of course, may vary.

I’ve produced a copy of the Statement below the fold, and then a brief explication of what I find problematic about the Statement.  I finish with an example of the kind of announcement for which I had been hoping and why I think that type of announcement would have better served OWS’s purposes.

I Consider this Occupy Wall Street Video a Personal Smear

Maybe America never had a real aristocracy, but it seems many of us badly want to grovel in front of one.

                        --Me

I still think that is fundamentally correct.  I think there is a large percentage of people in any population who are what Professor Bob Altemeyer refers to as “Right-Wing Authoritarians,” which means they demonstrate the following traits:  (i) a high degree of submission to the established authorities in their society; (ii) high levels of aggression in the name of those authorities; and (iii) a high level of conventionalism. 

(Note:  “right-wing” - in this case - merely means supportive of the established authority; a right-wing authoritarian in the old USSR would have been a Communist.  As used by Altemeyer, “right-wing” has nothing to do with the political spectrum, and everything to do with supporting the existing power structure.  Professor Altemeyer’s book The Authoritarians is available to read on-line, and for free, here.  I really cannot recommend it enough.)