Bret Devereaux

This is not what soldiers are trained to do. Yes, there is a riot control field manual (FM 3-19.15; you can find the 2005 version here: https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf … ). Yes, they have some training. But this is not the primary mission they prepared for. And as we've discussed... 2/16

...when you ask a force to do a mission outside of their core training and competence, things tend to go more than a little bit screwy. Introducing military force into these sorts of circumstances generally tends to escalate, not calm down, the situation. 3/16

Now the state has the advantage - it has more violence. So it can 'win' in the short term by escalating the violence. But you cannot govern a country through violence. You govern a country through power. Let me explain, by way of a summary of H. Arendt's "On Violence" 4/16

Power is how you get the public to comply without using violence, or even the direct threat of violence. As I tell my students: - If you run a red light, and get stopped by a cop, that's state violence; they have a weapon and are going to make you do things... 5/16

...that is power. Power arises out of legitimacy, it arises out of cultural norms, it arises out of reciprocity with authority. Foolish leaders mistake violence for a kind of power - this is Arendt's key point. They think more violence=more power... 7/16

...but that's wrong. Where you have power, you don't need violence. And where you use violence *you*don't*have*power.* The very *use* of violence erodes power, because it strikes at the legitimacy that power arises from. 8/16

The President routinely mistakes violence for power in this way. He is suggesting that he can use the military - which trades in violence, rather than power - to restore order. And sure, the military can clear the streets. It will be ugly, it will cause damage...9/16

...but they can do it. But the military cannot reestablish *power* - they cannot restore legitimacy. Negotiation can do that. Compromise can do that. Community leaders can do that. Elected officials standing together can do that. 10/16

A country can hold another country by force, if they have enough of it. That's what empire is. Clever empires convert that into power as quickly as possible - the Romans did it by co-opting local elites, using their legitimacy as the foundation of Roman power. 11/16

But no country can hold *itself* by force, or through violence for very long. Because the country is the base that generates the force. Even tyrants and dictators have to establish legitimacy and power; they put lots of effort into it. 12/16

And let's be clear, this isn't a two-Americas thing; there are protests in every state in the nation. The mask has been torn off the eyes of a lot of people who didn't know or didn't want to know what was done in their name and they are angry. That bell cannot be un-rung. 13/16

Things may calm down for a moment. But unless the government reestablishes power - which you cannot do with tear-gar and batons - through legitimacy and legitimacy through **justice**, we're just going to be back here again, and sooner than you'd think... 14/16

So this isn't a moment for tough-talk and bravado. It's a moment for listening, compassion and negotiation. And unfortunately, I think we all know that is a kind of leadership that the president is both unable and unwilling to perform. 15/16

We're going to get to choose new leaders soon. Be looking out, locally and nationally - which of your representatives saw this as a moment to restore legitimacy and show leadership? Who saw this as an opportunity to wield violence? And choose accordingly. 16/16