The Day of Rage and the London Riots

I was pondering the recent riots in London. The British media agreed that the random looting of sporting goods and electronics stores was not an indication of deeper discontent born of poverty, social exclusion, or poor education. Some of those arrested were middle class or upper middle class young people who took the opportunity to commit crimes, burning and looting, thumping their noses at authority, knowing that the police would be slow to respond or not respond at all. The law is lax and police do not carry guns.

Some journalists believed that the left had encouraged “posh” youth to riot against the student fees. When poorer kids joined in, the media was appalled. When the government pays upwards of $80,000 for the education of young people who remain idle after graduation because self-responsibility and self-reliance are not part of the nanny state culture, why are we surprised that criminality, drugs, idleness, and sloth are the results? Shaun Bailey of the Guardian says, “Personal responsibility and community responsibility have been replaced by state responsibility.” The expensive education they have received has prepared them for very little. If they were inclined to labor, the lack of work ethic would not be worth the headache and cost to an employer. “Much of the unskilled work is done by foreigners, while an indigenous class of permanently unemployed is being subsidized.”

---

Immoral and amoral lifestyles of British youth are driven by the drug pop culture of the likes of Amy Winehouse, who went to an early grave living and singing about the dangerous drug and alcohol addiction that permeated every note of her music. She was the youth role model. Every magazine turned her into a hero after her death.

Sticking it to the rich, Unions, Wisconsin

“Sticking it to the rich” was expressed by smashing storefronts, destroying property, looting, setting fire to homes and businesses that took generations to build with hard work and perseverance. The opportunity to destroy was intoxicating to the drug-addled youth. Who is responsible for the behavior of these young people? Why have parents abdicated their responsibility to the nanny state? Last week, I came across a full-page article in the Washington Post written by David S. Meyer, professor of Sociology and Political Science at the University of California at Irvine. The title and subtitle were both provocative and shocking, “Americans are angry. So where are the protests?” “London burns. Why not D.C.?” Professor Meyer makes the argument that such riots are “investment of organizers who cultivate grass-roots activism.” He believes that the American system is organized “to channel anger and discontent into political institutions,” following the model set by James Madison. Meyer describes the grass-roots activism in Wisconsin which “stripped public-sector unions of most of their collective-bargaining rights and their workers of a lot of money;” he talks about Rosa Parks and her boycott in 1955 as a focused, long-time organizer; he describes in detail the recall elections in Wisconsin, intended to flip the balance of power back to Democrats. David Meyer incorrectly suggests that most of the organized protests in the U.S. today have been on the right, “grouped loosely under the mantle of the tea party.” He claims that the movement existed for more than a decade. The tea party movement started in early 2009. It is not a party, it is a state of mind; people are saying, we are “taxed enough already.” The left has been more vocal and disruptive in their protests and demonstrations, causing millions of dollars in property damage at various venues around the country. The tea party protests do not destroy any property and leave the grounds much cleaner than they found them.

Tea Party is growing by leaps and bounds

He claims that the tea party is kept alive by the Tea Party Caucus, preoccupied by the debt ceiling, and by those who are running for office. That is entirely untrue; the movement is growing by leaps and bounds. The tea party members and other Americans are extremely interested in the debt ceiling and our government’s overspending that is bankrupting the country. Professor Meyer admits that there is “anger about unemployment and that it feels much worse than the official jobless rate.” He knows many “earnest and intelligent” college graduates who are desperate to find work since college loans are coming due. They also wish to move out of their parents’ home. However, they need a “social movement,” not just updating their resumes. He suggests that sometimes unions can speak for the unemployed and the employed alike, as it happened during the Great Depression. He concludes, unions today focus on helping their members and the president, in spite of their differences. Since the fabric of our youth is somewhat different from the youth of Britain, he expects people taking to the polls, rather than taking to the streets. As James Madison planned, “Frustration and disappointment are butting up against political pragmatism.” I hope Professor Meyer is right. His opinion certainly contradicts the extreme left chatter on social networks and Twitter, promising to organize a “day of rage” in Washington, D.C. and Wall Street in New York on September 17, the 224th anniversary of our Constitution.