No, it's not any of those places, a fact that would seemingly serve as an unlikely pretext for a declaration of martial law. But Congressman John Lewis of Georgia is arguing here that Obama should declare martial law in Ferguson as a way of protecting the protesters from the police. Digest that one for a second. We've already got looting and general unrest going on, and since the St. Louis County police were apparently incapable of handling the situation, Gov. Jay Nixon has now sent in the Missouri State Highway Patrol to take over the job of keeping the peace.
It seems to me that, if anything, the protesters have the upper hand.
Do you get the impression in listening to Lewis's comments, as I do, that he isn't really that familiar with the specifics of the situation in Ferguson, but rather just assumes it's a reset of Montgomery or Selma, and therefore the same dynamics apply as the ones he dealt with as a young (and back then, quite legitimate) Civil Rights activist? Watch:
I would make a flat-out declaration that there is no way Obama will declare martial law, not because he is loathe to throw around federal power in that way but because it is simply beyond the pale of what's politically plausible to make that move. I've learned, however, not to underestimate Obama's willingness to push the envelope. I still think he won't, but if I'm betting against Obama's abuse of his authority, I'm always going to hedge at least a little.
About John Lewis: This is a man who endured severe beatings during the Civil Rights era, and ever since has been afforded a certain sacrosanct hero status by the media - a status he has parlayed into a very long career in Congress as a pretty down-the-line liberal Democrat. It is that sacrosanct hero status that makes it possible for him to utter such things as you see here without really being challenged by Andrea Mitchell.
Meanwhile, I note that there's a narrative gaining steam on the right that the real problem here is the "militarization of the police." Thinking like this has always confounded me. A lawless mob takes to the streets, determined to perpetrate mayhem - in many cases just because the circumstance has provided an excuse to do so - and people want to a) demand the police get out there and stop it; and then b) blame the manner in which the police try to do so for the problem existing in the first place.
That makes no sense. We're still waiting for the facts to really come out about the initial shooting, and if it turns out the officer who shot Michael Brown acted in the wrong, then that needs to be dealt with. But I'm getting a little tired of conservatives taking a cue from their demented libertarian cousins and abandoning the right's longstanding support and respect for police officers who put their lives on the line in every-day situations, let alone situations like this.
Individual officers certainly do make mistakes, and yes, sometimes they abuse their authority. Perhaps that happened in the shooting of Michael Brown. But the police in general are not the problem in this country and I'm getting a little tired of people who at least claim to be conservatives acting like 20-year-old college students who hate the police because they got in trouble for drunk walking at 3 in the morning after a party in the student section. When you look at a police officer tasked with protecting the public safety and all you see is another example of "big nanny state government," you've lost all ability to distinguish reality from your paranoid fantasy, and no political movement needs you.
You sort of expect that type of nonsense from a left-winger like John Lewis. We really don't need it on our side.
