When Dr. King was shot the protests, riots and chaos in the days that followed in many of Americas major cities were used by opponents of Dr.King as a kind of justification for why you can't let black people have nice things: "I mean, look what they will do to their own neighborhoods!" The trouble is, and I never realized this until I started reading history for myself, it is very hard to understand the nature of a "riot" by looking at media. I'm still looking for more good sources on these events. (Do you know of any?)
In any case, I was thinking about how some of the Republicans, recently, have not been doing enough to quell the violent rhetoric coming from some people in this country, and I was thinking: What do they have to gain by letting this fester? Should a tragic assassination occur it would make all involved look, well evil, right? It would be a blemish on the Right. Then it hit me. Could they want ... riots?
Maybe this is too much of a conspiracy theory. But, I think there are some on the Right who really just relish the though of race riots, becuase of the impact race riots have had on the political landscape in the past. I brought this up with some friends and they said, at some right-wing forums, they had noticed posts that did indeed relish the possibility of civil unrest following a national tragedy. That is, there are at least a few people think that only that kind of unrest, like what happened 1968, could serve as a "wake up call" as they might say-- for what exactly I do not know.
So, then I wondered, would there even be riots, if something happened to Obama? I decided probably not. Things are very different today compared with some 40 years ago-- I think many people feel far less helpless and far more knowledgeable about how to use their political power to get things done. But, I doubt those who embrace the violent rhetoric on the right see that change. Why else would they endorse, through inaction, a losing strategy like allowing factions of their party to become overtly violent?
Why is it so hard for Republicans to distance themselves from the violence more clearly? They can't possibly see any good in letting all of this go to its logical conclusion unless they are very short sighted. The way I see it, they only stand to lose.
But, my grandmother and one friend disagreed with me about there being no riots. "You think things have changed but for many people very little has changed. The outward appearance of our communities is more glossy than the core. There is still a great deal of pain, anger, and helplessness."
In any case, I only pray that we will never have to find out what would happen should one or more sad, desperate, and heartless souls take the violent rhetoric to heart and act on it effectively.