Conservative Protesters and the Question of Law and Order

Conservative protesters sometimes claim that they uphold law and order when their actions challenge this perspective. They argue that they are not to be lumped in with extremists like Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa. Similarly, they express a sense of frustration with the perception that the system is too rigid to be influenced or overthrown. This article will explore the logic behind these claims and the implications of their actions on the concept of law and order.

Background and Context

The argument made by conservative protesters is often rooted in a sense of disillusionment with the political system and a belief in the inherent goodness of people who participate in peaceful and lawful protest. They cite the two-party system as a impediment that has kept them sidelined for a long time. The fact that some protesters cross the line into violence raises questions about the integrity and true intentions of these movements.

It's important to note that individuals can claim almost anything based on personal beliefs. However, the actions of any group should not be generalized or assumed to represent the entire community of supporters. There are factions within every movement, and it is the responsibility of leaders to ensure that these actions do not undermine the cause they are advocating for.

The Role of Truth and Integrity in Protest

Conservative protesters often cite the supposed waste of time associated with protesting as proof that the system is beyond their reach. This perspective is fuelled by the belief that the political establishment is too large and entrenched to be influenced by grassroots movements. However, history has shown that peaceful protest can have a significant impact when done strategically and with persistence.

Claiming to be about law and order is a double-edged sword. While it can rally support, it may also invite scrutiny and backlash if actions do not align with the stated values. For example, the time when a conservative protester is involved in breaking down police barriers and entering the capital in Washington DC can be seen as a significant departure from law and order.

The Definition of Fascism

Fascism, as defined by Robert O. Paxton, is marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity. In Paxton's descriptions, the language and symbols of fascist groups transform familiar and reassuring symbols into obligatory litmus tests for detecting the internal enemy.

The American version of fascism, if it were to emerge, would need to use symbols that resonate with the American identity. Stars and Stripes or Stars and Bars and Christian crosses, among others, could be used in a similar way that saw swastikas and fascist salutes in Europe. The pledge of allegiance could also be transformed into a form of obligatory litmus test.

Implications and Considerations

The actions of these protesters not only challenge the narrative of upholding law and order but also raise concerns about the erosion of democratic liberties and the potential for violence if unchecked. The concept of internal cleansing and external expansion, as described by Paxton, can be viewed as a metaphoric representation of the kind of radical actions that could be undertaken in the name of purifying a perceived enemy.

It is crucial for conservative protesters to adhere to their stated values of law and order to maintain their credibility and influence. Any behavior that contradicts these values risks undermining the very cause they seek to support. Leaders within the movement must ensure that their actions align with their stated goals and values to avoid being seen as liars and traitors, as the text suggests.

The actions and rhetoric of these protesters will be closely watched by the public and the media. If these actions are seen as a facade, it could damage the credibility of the movement and put the entire discourse around law and order in jeopardy.