As we now know from Rahm Emanuel, one should never waste a good crisis.
It is in this practical spirit that some in the United Kingdom have leapt onto their soapboxes and, like Cassandra finally released from her curse, happily proclaimed, “I told you so.” On the BBC’s Newsnight show on Monday evening, socialist former mayor Ken Livingstone directly linked the criminality of the thugs in London to the austerity measures introduced by the Conservative-Liberal coalition. (Which, as with most “cuts,” only slow the rate of growth.) The rioting, he said, is “the fault of the government because basically, you go all over London, I was up in Tottenham. Tottenham has had a 9 percent cut nearly in its government grant. The youth centers are closing, people are seeing all the sort of things they used to rely on going.”
Advertisement
Aside from being spectacularly wide of the mark — not to mention making unpalatable and irresponsible excuses for mindless violence — this betrays a line of thought whose conclusion is, frankly, terrifying. Since when was this part of the social compact? There are all sorts of things that British voters do not like, but they can not all turn to anarchy when they fail to get what they want. What will become of our democracy if we are held hostage in this way? If a 9 percent cut in spending is met inevitably with three days of violence, looting, arson, and now a death, then we may as well pack up and go home, conceding to the barbarians that we have no choice any more but to cower at their feet and feed them. From heaven, Hobbes is wryly smiling.
But feed them we have. All but the most psychopathic criminals determine their behavior by the likely consequences of their actions. The harsh truth is that too many of those running riot on London’s streets believe that they can get away with it. Some of them will. They are accustomed to being protected under the forgiving carapace of the Left, most eloquently represented by a BBC that is still myopically laboring under the misapprehension that this behavior has anything whatsoever to do with the initial complaint — that a man was shot dead by police — and is thus determinedly rechristening criminals as “protesters.”
“Protesters against what?” one might ask. It is an empty question. Those who are setting fire to London and kicking down its doors — destroying small businesses and family homes while they are at it — are not victims, nor are they “protesters,” and they hold no legitimate claim to the legacy of Henry David Thoreau. They are what we used to call delinquents, back in the time when we were prepared to defend our civilization from those who would wreck it. They are smashing up England’s capital city because they want to smash something up. They saw their opportunity, and they took it; the opportunity to do some damage, to take that flat-screen television that they wanted, and to beat people up with impunity. There is no Marie Antoinette in this scenario, nor is there a Montgomery Bus Company. Make no mistake about it, lest you fall into the trap with Ken Livingstone: You are not seeing anything which comes within a country mile of virtue. The virtuous are not out on the streets, but sitting at home trying to explain to their children what is happening and hoping that their insurance holds.
While Livingstone and his ilk are peddling suicidal indulgences, there is however one level at which they are inadvertently correct: These riots were inevitable. This violence is the unavoidable by-product of an endemic neglect which has been anything but salutary: Neglect by parents, who have come to expect their responsibilities to be nationalized and their vital role arrogated by social services and the schools; neglect by those schools, which have singularly failed to instill any discipline, and which are in many cases legally prohibited from removing disruptive, even violent, children; neglect by the courts, which have failed to prosecute the guilty and have redefined wickedness as illness or disability; and neglect by Parliament, which has pig-headedly failed to address the problems of ghettoization while systematically disarming and emasculating the law-abiding public.
was the rodney king scenario a crisis of the west? was the beating of the white truck driver later on for revenge for rodney king a crisis of the west? it was an idiotic response to perceived police brutality.
the police in london shot and killed a guy who shot at them first.
where is all this doomsday stuff coming from?
did you see the nro poll for today? what's wrong with you people?
Charlie, you have managed to distill the entire problem into a simple, direct, forceful argument. Well put, sir.
If anyone needs to fill in this story with more research on the particulars, google Theodore Dalrymple or Anthony Daniels, and set aside at least a day to peruse what he has to say on the matter.
I don't think he is all that surprised today, either.
(For you real NR and NRO junkies, I am only putting this in for any newcomers or trolls who wander by. I don't mean to insult your intelligence.)
The perpetrators of these mindless acts are uncivilized animals and should be treated as such. But, the major impression one gets from reading the British media is the complicity of the Left in these outrages. Both Labour members of Parliament and prominent members of the media are excusing and encouraging the mayhem. They go so far as to deny that arson, assault, robbery and property damage are even criminal.
One can only sympathize with the civilized citizens of Britain. They are obviously no longer in the majority.
Mr Cooke is absolutely correct, as far as he goes. He may not have seen the faces of rioters in photos and videos, as I have. But the faces tell of another cause of this mess that the writer failed to mention: Nonwhite - especially black - immigration.
For some reason, I thought the welfare state was supposed to solve all the problems that had made the poor and disenfranchised take to the streets in the past. They have food, shelter, clothing, health care, education, counseling for when they get into trouble - all the necessities of life plus a coupleo of nice-to-haves, free for the asking courtesy of HM Government.
So why are these people so angry? What don't they have, or what is being done to them, that makes them riot? Has anyone asked?
When you give a inch they want to take a mile. Why does a drug addict always want more? Obviously it will only end with a bad result. As in all democracies the end is brutal. Look at the French Revolution - it ended with the great dictator Napoleon. So what great dictator will appear? Britian needs Winston Churchill back.
Oh, well I guess the rock group Queen said it best: Another One Bites The Dust.
Cheerio old pip
Pete Townshend soundtrack, up loud. Another generation of London riots, a rich streetfighting antecedent, a culture that loves to brawl teaching a new generation.
"Since when was this part of the social compact? There are all sorts of things that British voters do not like, but they can not all turn to anarchy when they fail to get what they want. What will become of our democracy if we are held hostage in this way?"
While certainly true, I can't help but also wonder when did bailouts of bankers and others in the financial industry become part of the social compact? When did we decide that those at the top had an inalienable right to remain there? We've all been held hostage by them. Meanwhile the only economic role of government now seems to be ensuring that stock prices are propped up. High unemployment, though luck, get used to it, oh and, by the way, we'll be making it worse in the name of austerity.
Dear Britain,
I propose a trade that will make everyone happy. We (as in America) will give you all our liberals, in exchange for all your conservatives.
We have a whole cadre of slightly used but in good condition liberals. America's liberals love to fund the welfare state with other people's money, love to "understand" why criminals behave as they do, and love to push parent's responsibilities to the state. They are really big on centralized control, and value security over freedom. They seem to be convinced that government service turns a nitwit into an Einstein. They should get along fine in your society.
Even if your conservatives are somewhat frayed and badly used, we'll take 'em.
Oh, before I forget: we'll throw Barak Obama into the deal, to sweeten it. You can keep all your politicians. We have them in excess here, and don't want any more.
Tough times, England? You should speak to your elders about WWII, maybe that will give you some perspective. Sadly, liberal England has forgotten what "stiff upper lip" means.
Kudos, Charlie Cooke, for an insightful, spot-on, perfectly articulated commentary as to the causes of the hooliganism on display throughout England. If only the left would at long last confront the sad reality of the consequences of their utterly destructive policies. That won't happen, of course. But, let's hold out hope that a significant number of Brits will be moved sufficiently by the thievery, chaos, and wanton destruction to demand an end to progressive political lunacy. Let's also hope that National Review recognizes your obvious talent and offers you a permanent position.
It was such a shame that the youths in Manchester decided to follow the bandwagon and "protest" too. Fortunately, we didn't get the catastrophic aftermath that London got, which I only have the deepest sympathies for.