Bret Devereaux

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