Yes, of course, desecration and destruction are already illegal, but as we know, many elected officials have chosen to turn a blind eye — or, in some cases, have actively supported — vandalism of statues and monuments. .
For his part, Donald Trump has an answer. He wants to defend the statues, even if, of course, he has not always been able to (it’s a big country).
Is that a fair charge against a hypothetical President Biden? We don’t know, of course, because Biden is not in the White House — although polls indicate that he could be. And in the meantime, we certainly do know that other Democrats aren’t trying very hard to protect public order
In such a situation, we need clarity. We need to find out: Who’s on the side of public order, and who’s on the side of disorder?Â
So to help bring about that clarity, let’s make it a clear test: Let’s boil down the idea of public order into a binary choice, a simple “yes†or “no.â€Â Indeed, let’s turn it into a pledge to put before politicians, incumbents and challengers alike
To be sure, not every politician will sign the pledge; in fact, it’s likely that many won’t. Yet of course, during this current spree of vandalizing violence, to not sign a pledge to uphold order is, in fact, to be making a plain-as-day statement — that one is soft on, or perhaps even supportive of, vandalistic violence.Â
So presumably many politicians, especially at the state and federal level, would be happy to sign such a pledge — and if they don’t, well, the voters might be happy to learn the name of his or her opponent in the next election