Aside from the obvious answer of Clinton and Reno, I'm thinking that one of the reasons the right didn't try to make the government a police state was because, at a certain level McVeigh, coming at it from the far right, represented a convergence with the far-left critique of state power that would have applied just as surely if it was George Sr's 2nd-term administration that had staked out and attacked the Davidians with tanks on 19 April 1993.
(But having said that, I agree, it is a good question.)
It's a little more complicated than "no one in politics listens" to protesters. I think it's non-linear. I suppose they feel safe to ignore protests below some threshold of prevalence. But I suppose they always have an eye on them so they know how close and how rapidly they are approaching threshold. I suppose some public discourses are more tinderboxy or perceived as more tinderboxy by those in power, and with regard to those they don't want to risk any protest whatsoever. c.f. Lott's ode to Strom Thurmond.
I don't think it's the no one listens to protestors in general case as it is no one listens to anarchist protestors. I find them silly and counterproductive. They're listened to in a negative way - media coverage of anarchists allows govt and citizens to ignore protestors by reducing them to the silly slogans of the anarchists.
4 comments:
Aside from the obvious answer of Clinton and Reno, I'm thinking that one of the reasons the right didn't try to make the government a police state was because, at a certain level McVeigh, coming at it from the far right, represented a convergence with the far-left critique of state power that would have applied just as surely if it was George Sr's 2nd-term administration that had staked out and attacked the Davidians with tanks on 19 April 1993.
(But having said that, I agree, it is a good question.)
Good answer. Does that left really exist in the US? Anarchist left? But no one in politics listens to them.
It's a little more complicated than "no one in politics listens" to protesters. I think it's non-linear. I suppose they feel safe to ignore protests below some threshold of prevalence. But I suppose they always have an eye on them so they know how close and how rapidly they are approaching threshold. I suppose some public discourses are more tinderboxy or perceived as more tinderboxy by those in power, and with regard to those they don't want to risk any protest whatsoever. c.f. Lott's ode to Strom Thurmond.
I don't think it's the no one listens to protestors in general case as it is no one listens to anarchist protestors. I find them silly and counterproductive. They're listened to in a negative way - media coverage of anarchists allows govt and citizens to ignore protestors by reducing them to the silly slogans of the anarchists.
Post a Comment