Friends, a friend of mine has written this excellent retrospective on the Boston Tea Party, which occurred 250 years ago today. He argues, in effect, that "mobs", provided they do their business in an orderly fashion (whatever that may mean), have a legitimate place in the democratic process, especially when governments trample on the people's rights. He strains to emphasize the fact that the Boston tea partiers represented the body politic rather than a "faction", although I rather suspect that every mob would claim as much. I personally think the question of the legitimacy of the use of violence in a democratic, or pseudo-democratic, context is an open question. The easy thing is to say "I'm against violence", but the truth is that no one really is -- not in all circumstances. The question is: when does tyranny become onerous enough to trigger righteous (and violent) indignation? Secondarily, when does violence do any good to the cause that the "mob" is trying to advocate -- and when does it backfire? These are tough issues to sort through, but maybe this article will give you a start.
Of course, the real crime of the tea partiers, I think you would agree, was the fact that they dressed like Native Americans. That's cultural appropriation!!! Disgusting. I'm calling HR right now!
Finally, strange as it may seem, our nation's fate, and DJT's as well, may hinge on who manages to get on the presidential ballot in 2024. Trump himself may struggle to do so, in some parts of the country, but lesser candidates, like Kennedy, West, and Stein, certainly will. Their success, or lack thereof, will determine the constellation of choices that the American people have -- unless, of course, significant numbers of people choose to use the write-in process, which is always a lot to ask of the average voter. Pay close attention to the efforts of third-party candidates to gain ballot access -- and to the efforts of Democrats to deny them this right. It's a much bigger story than you might think.
