What a splendid editorial today about the London riots in the New York Times. With friends like the Gray Lady, Britain doesn’t need enemies; all of the Times’s pathologies and obsessions are on display in one handy, clip-n-save classic of moral relativism, tu quoque-ism, classism, tut-tutism, partisan point-scoring, handwringing, and just plain nuttiness. Behold “Wrong Answers in Britain.”
The perpetrators must be punished, the police must improve their riot control techniques, and Prime Minister David Cameron’s government must do all it can to make such episodes less likely in the future. We are more confident about the first two happening than the third.
Mr. Cameron, a product of Britain’s upper classes and schools, has blamed the looting and burning on a compound of national moral decline, bad parenting and perverse inner-city subcultures.
Would he find similar blame — this time in the culture of the well housed and well off — for Britain’s recent tabloid phone hacking scandals or the egregious abuse of expense accounts by members of Parliament?
Yes, days of violent, destructive riots are exactly the same as the phone-hacking flap. But don’t worry, it gets worse:
The thousands who were arrested last week for looting and for more violent crimes should face the penalties that are prescribed by law. But Mr. Cameron is not content to stop there. He talks about cutting off government benefits even to minor offenders and evicting them — and, in a repellent form of collective punishment, perhaps their families, too — from the publicly supported housing in which one of every six Britons lives.
He has also called for blocking access to social networks like Twitter during future outbreaks. And he has cheered on the excessive sentences some judges have been handing out for even minor offenses.
Such draconian proposals often win public applause in the traumatized aftermath of riots. But Mr. Cameron, and his Liberal Democrat coalition partners, should know better. They risk long-term damage to Britain’s already fraying social compact.
Ah, the “social compact” so beloved of the neo-Rousseauian Left. It never seems to occur to them that one in six Britons did not land in public housing because of bad luck, or the machinations of evil capitalists, but because too often the state put them there. And you just know the Times would like to see that number go higher. Because, after all, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.”
No Times editorial would be complete without the obligatory, ideologically stuffed peroration that manages to work in “austerity,” the poor being hardest hit, the need for stimulus, shared sacrifice — oh, heck, you read it:
Britain’s urban wastelands need constructive attention from the Cameron government, not just punishment. His government’s wrongheaded austerity policies have meant fewer public sector jobs and social services. Even police strength is scheduled to be cut. The poor are generally more dependent on government than the affluent, so they have been hit the hardest.
What Britain’s sputtering economy really needs is short-term stimulus, not more budget cutting. Unfortunately, there is no sign that Mr. Cameron has figured that out. But, at a minimum, burdens need to be more fairly shared between rich and poor — not as a reward to anyone, but because it is right.
For a much-needed antidote, be sure to read this by Prof. Joyce Lee Malcom over at Power Line. A flavor:
The extent of the tolerance of criminality and refusal to allow law-abiding people to protect themselves has led to an atmosphere where gangs can operate with virtual impunity. The recent, widespread riots, apart from their scale, are not radically different from the violence that has been occurring for many years.
Let us hope the English politicians so surprised and angry at the lawlessness in their cities realize it is time for change, time to permit people to protect themselves and to bring some rigour into the punishment of offenders.
Will there always be an England? I’m not holding my breath.
That's a New York Times article. There will always be an England, but there may not always be an Upper West Side.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The poor are generally more dependent on government than the affluent, so they have been hit the hardest."
My gut tells me this has not always been true, logic tells me it certainly doesn't HAVE to be true. When Reagan said that "Government IS the problem", he struck a chord with those who would prefer that government which governs least. My guess is that the intent of Perry to make DC inconsequential to the daily life of the average American resonates the same way and for the same reason.
There is no greater damage you can do to someone than to make them completely dependent on largesse.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTalk about the need for the separation of "new testament" and state. I'm ready for some "old testament" eye for an eye retribution. Or as Sean Connery implores in "The Untouchables" or maybe a Clint Eastwood 'Dirty Harry'.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have to play a video now for my WV? I don't mind typing in a sponsor's company slogan if NR gets more advertising revenue for it, but this is a few steps more obnoxious.
Anyway, I think a perverse Fleet Street subculture should get a certain amount of blame for the phone hacking scandal. And when a large portion of a neighborhood goes looting and pillaging, does the Times think that's a healthy subculture, or does culture not have anything to do with it? That there's a perverse subculture there seems self-evident to me, though I can see room for a lot of disagreement as to causes and solutions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMichael, an equally applicable question is whether there will always be an America. With friends like the New York Times, it's not clear there will be.
The Times is ludicrous, but the impact of its drivel is likely to be limited in the UK -- nobody at No. 10 Downing is likely to read this nonsense. Unfortunately for us, you know as well as anyone else that the Obama White House wakes up to the Times' editorials each morning, and their Marxism correspondingly has greater impact here.
Equally unfortunately, when they go around arguing for a welfare state or open borders and amnesty for illegal Central American migrants, they are pushing the same narcotics on the US that they display in this editorial about the UK.
For the Times, there's no such thing as a person -- or even type of person -- who, due to his education, behaviors, upbringing, or culture, is more or less desirable to have in one's society than anyone else. Britain's "yobs," "chavs" and thugs cannot be responsible for their rioting and destruction of property (and human life). No, for the Times, what has happened is that they (residents of one of the most overstuffed social welfare societies on Earth) haven't been given enough goodies by the state. Thus, for the Times, while the thugs are blameless and need to be afforded the same incentives and benefits as everyone else in England, the state and the taxpayers whose interests it is supposed to represent are at fault in the riots.
Similarly, the Times doesn't think that the US's massive (and growing more massive) underclass of illegal Central Americans should be judged on its own merits. If these people come here illegally, they must be victims. Despite the fact that they are not here legally, they 'belong' here. There can be no question as to whether it will be good or bad for the United States and its citizens if suddenly tens of millions of illegal migrants (and all of their tens of millions of relatives who will be able subsequently to enter the US) are suddenly given all of the entitlements of US citizenship. There can be no question as to whether these are desirable citizens or are likely to help or hurt the interests of Americans if given amnesty. Nor, for that matter, can it be asked whether amnesty is fair to those applying legally (who to the Times must, by dint of following protocol, be affluent and therefore evil).
Let's call the NYT out for what it is: one of the most prominent enemies of civilization, culture, normalcy, and human progress. They don't want the places where those things are found -- as the UK and the US have historically been -- to exist. And when those countries either create through excessive welfare, or allow in, the type of people you don't want as citizens, that too must be the fault of insufficient state-supplied goodies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe NYT lies -- maybe that caused the riots?
And did they really reference a "social compact"? Which one? The anglo tradition of maintain civic order? Or the Classical Liberal framework of protecting private rights?
At least they didn't stumble into calling it a "social contract" -- a concept Lady Thatcher definitively demolished for any who cared to pay attention.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"What Britain’s sputtering economy really needs is short-term stimulus"
Yeah, look at how successful that's been in the US.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Den: just imagine how much rioting we would have had in the USA if it weren't for the stimulus!
It SAVED us!
/sarc
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI read the article at powerline. And I have concluded that the people in Great Britain have no one to blame but themselves.
They allowed themselves to become disarmed. They have done little in response to the stupidity that their government has foisted on them.
They lost their liberty and their rights through their own inaction. Afterall we only have the rights we can successfully defend. Since the Brits now cannot effectively defend themselves they can say goodbye to their rights.
The lawless just proved to themselves that there is virtually no down side to ultra violence. The droogs in England will unleash thier tantrums again and again. Armed robbery will increase as thugs come to recognize that the law is on their side, not on the side of law abiding citizens.
If we don't want this same situation in America, what are willing to do about the slippery slope on which we find ourselves.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA couple of obvious points that the NYT doesn't seem to have grasped:
1. Everyone did seem eager to put some collective blame out for the phone hacking scandals. It wasn't just a case of firing the people directly responsible for the hacking, but of shutting down the entire paper, on the grounds that this was corporate policy and the entire thing was corrupt.
Likewise, with the riots, these were not individual criminals, but hundreds of people doing this. At this point, looking at the culture of the community that produced these hundreds seems entirely appropriate.
2. The rioters generally did what they did because they thought they could get away with it. Making an example of some of those who got caught and showing them they can't get away with it, ie "the excessive sentences some judges have been handing out for even minor offenses" again seems like a good idea.
Thank you. I'm done joyriding and hereby return the keys of the ObviousMobile to Captain Obvious.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, of course you're going to give it back to Captain Obvious, now that you've run it into a ditch. You gonna stand there and drink your Slurpee, now?
/sarc
(I *WILL NOT* click on the captcha - to play it or to "reveal" the security code. I keep clicking the refresh until it comes up with something not requiring interaction. /not sarc)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe NYTimes editorials have increasingly read as if written by patients of mental hospitals. So, why would their antidotes's for England's woes be any more rational than theirs for America's?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe NYT's article seems to be more of sublte plea for help. They fear it could happen in NYC next.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe already know it could happen in L.A. Or in Crown Heights. Even in Wisconsin.
The Dems at the NYT are just prepping the battlespace, making sure everyone knows rioting is caused by capitalism, colonialism, globalism... Or just markets in general.
Their prescription will be more central planning, less private property. Because whatever the ailment, that's the medicine they want you to buy. Yep, a big shiny corporation selling snake-oil. Caveat emptor, leftists.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAugust 1914. That's when Western Civilization shot itself in the head and did irreparable damage. Exsanguination and slow death have taken decades, and there has been some thrashing of the limbs from time to time. But the thing really lost its vital energy a century ago. There is no "England" to save anymore, just as there is no "America" and no "Europe." There are only bleeding bits, organs anguishing as they cease to function as once they did.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGet rid of this puzzle.
Let's not be too harsh with the British government.
They face the same Hobson's choice as the dainty female NYC police.
When confronted with violence their choices are limited to:
A. a stern lecture with finder pointing, or
C. emptying her pistol into them
Missing:
B. in which the offender is grabbed, thrown to the ground, held there with a boot on his neck and handcuffed for transport.
She knows that this is simply not possible. Her size, strength and manner make any physical resistance ridiculous (what can an 85 lb. 4'10" girl do against... against... well, anyone).
In much the same fashion, by hesitating to use water cannon Cameron is left with no sliding scale of repressive actions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe will go straight to flame throwers.
For a paper legendarily associated with policing the language, when writing about the social compact one would think the Gray Lady would appreciate the definition of "compact."
Compacts-- and contracts-- work both ways, with *both* parties obliged to follow their terms.
What, again, did the rioters ever do to deserve the charity of the rest of Britain?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBear in mind, the people of that dinky little country (formerly known as "Great") are not permitted to defend themselves. If they fight against a criminal and cause harm to him, they are the ones who go to jail.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAny government that tried that here would not survive three months.