Or at least, they did half a century ago. Today, in an America that is much less white and much less conservative, and in which what conservative remnant there still is is far more obsessed with tearing down its own party than it is fighting the dominant leftwingnut ruling elite? I've got massive doubts.
Evidently the Obamedia is taking the "threat" at least a bit more seriously:
Riots elicit a hostile, right-wing response, a new study shows.
i.e. Violent "social justice" stimulates "white racism".
The finding by Omar Wasow, an assistant professor at the department of politics at Princeton, comes in his paper titled, "Nonviolence, Violence and Voting: Effects of the 1960s Black Protests on White Attitudes and Voting Behavior."
But it has some intriguing implications for cities roiled by anti-police brutality protests that have escalated into riots, New York Magazine reports.
"If the violent protests in Ferguson and Baltimore [and New York City and Oakland and Cleveland and....] supercede nonviolent protest, Wasow’s research implies that the liberal moment might give way to another reactionary era," New York Magazine reports.
i.e. The "white racists" will win and the KKK will ride again and the Confederacy will be resurrected. Even though all of the above were manifestations of the Democrat Party. The editors of NYM need to bone up on their American history education.
The unspoken - or unwritten, I suppose - phrase in the above quote is "reactionary against civil rights". As opposed to simply "reactionary against rioting and black racist street violence and burning down businesses and neighborhoods and otherwise sanctioning the upheaval and destruction of American civil society". Something the uberLeft was just as complicit in attempting to stir up during the 1960s as they are today, and which I would think Americans of all colors and ethnicities would vehemently oppose. That this is not remotely the case is more prima facie evidence that America is not nearly as conservative as it once was.
You can see this slant throughout "Professor" Wasow's paper:
According to the magazine, Wasow looked at the nonviolent civil-rights demonstrations and urban rioting during the 1960s, honing in on the change in public opinion from 1964, when Lyndon Johnson swept to victory with a liberal, pro-civil rights campaign, and 1968, when Richard Nixon won on the basis of a "social backlash."
The Left's repeated attempts at violent revolution in my first four years of existence outside the womb could not help but provoke a "social backlash" any more than a person's healthy autoimmune system would ignore an invading flu virus. That was not a backlash against "civil rights" - which, I'll remind everybody, congressional Republicans championed and congressional Democrats fought like the devil. And today? "Civil rights" has been redefined to mean "black dominance and 246 years of reverse slavery" or several years of U.S. GDP in "slavery reparations," whichever is less convenient.
"Examining county-level voting patterns, I find that black-led protests in which some violence occurs are associated with a statistically significant decline in Democratic vote-share in the 1964, 1968, and 1972 presidential elections," Wasow writes.
"Black-led nonviolent protests, by contrast, exhibit a statistically significant positive relationship with county-level Democratic vote-share in the same period."
He says he found in the 1968 presidential election "exposure to violent protests caused a decline in Democratic vote-share."
"Examining counterfactual scenarios in the 1968 election, I estimate that fewer violent protests are associated with a substantially increased likelihood that the Democratic presidential nominee, Hubert Humphrey, would have beaten the Republican nominee, Richard Nixon," he writes.
Perhaps. Though the black-led riots of the mid to late '60s were subsumed by the violent protests against the Vietnam War, and should be seen in that context, as part of a rising tide of societal upheaval that stirred up profound concerns and fears for the country itself and the need to reestablish "law and order" - which was, of course, one of the core planks of Tricky Dick's platform.
Nixon was also, in case there was any confusion, a supporter of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
But "Professor" Wasow is, naturally, ignoring other factors, like Hubert Humphrey being an abysmal candidate, and George Wallace almost negating what would otherwise have been the first of consecutive Nixon landslide victories. Maybe next time he can take a stab at soothsaying what the result of a Nixon-Bobby Kennedy matchup would have been - you know, the same RFK that, as his brother's attorney-general, signed off on illegal wiretaps of [the Republican] Dr. Martin Luther King's phone lines.
"As African Americans were strongly identified with the Democratic party in this time period, my results suggest that, in at least some contexts, political violence by a subordinate group may contribute to a backlash among segments of the dominant group and encourage outcomes directly at odds with the preferences of the protesters."
Today, "Professor", it is whites and conservatives that are the "subordinate group" and blacks and commies that are the "dominant group". Which may be why the latter feel free to be as violent and revolutionary as they want to be, free of any worries of consequences that could backfire on their cause.
The study concluded nonviolent civil-rights protests didn't trigger a national backlash — but violent protests and looting did.
"The physical damage inflicted upon poor urban neighborhoods by rioting does not have the compensating virtue of easing the way for more progressive policies; instead, it compounds the damage by promoting a regressive backlash," the magazine writes.
And that backlash during the Nixon years, the magazine reports, "drove a wave of repressive criminal-justice policies that carried through for decades with such force that even Democrats like Bill Clinton felt the need to endorse them in order to win elections."
What is "progressive" about racist minority violence caused by your preferred racist communist policies, "Professor"? And what is "regressive" and "repressive" about "insuring domestic Tranquility"?
The solution would seem to be simple - keep communist protests peaceful. But communist policies (particularly the Democrat Party's fifty-year welfare war against black America) breed minority racist violence, particularly against even the most reasonable, impartial enforcement of the law. A case of "Physicians, heel thyselves" instead of being a baying pack of Typhoid Marys.
Somehow I don't think "Professor" Wasow was listening.
No comments:
Post a Comment