First Post: Political Violence in light of events in Ferguson

Admittedly, I didn't think all the way through how to format it best. I was thinking that perhaps all of the team members could just throw topics or questions into the blog and everyone interested enough to address them could do so in the comments sections. If you want to be added to the "Team" of administrator-enabled members, please contact me via Facebook.


So let's begin with something fraught.

The recent issues in Ferguson, with their conclusion still some months away, begs a few questions about politics, power, race, domination, and even media coverage that have been dealt with somewhat poorly.

Since the facts of the case are yet to be determined, let's get right to the heart of it.

Max Weber's definition of the state as any "human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory" is the now unconscious basis for almost every mainstream discussion of the state or political action.

But that definition in itself leaves some pretty serious spaces to be filled-- what constitutes legitimacy? How does a state or entity lose legitimacy? Is the process of legitimation democratic? If it's not, can it be? Can that legitimacy be divided and delegated (in what circumstances is such vesting of power acceptable?)

More specifically--why do police in the United States carry firearms nearly universally? And why do they resort to them more often than police in other "Western" or "developed" nations?

And what about unintended consequences-- the reaction to police over use of Tazers over the last couple of years seems (in my view) conceivably linked to unwillingness to use "less lethal" options when force is necessary (if the public begins to see Tazers, as indeed seems to be the case, less and less as a 'safe' option, the circumstances under which an officer would elect to use or carry a Tazer become increasingly identical to the circumstances under which the same officer would elect to use a firearm).

And do police in the United States see themselves as outside the polity--somehow distinct from 'civilians,' as I often hear police refer to non-police?

For maximum entertainment value, imagine how Russian or perhaps even North Korean media might cover this particular instance. (In fact, Russia Today is easily available)

Origins; Guidelines; Purposes

I must confess that I'm not terribly patient.

Political discussions on the common media (namely Facebook, but I suspect the same is true of other social media) bring in a terrible signal to noise ratio.

Conservatives post the latest Fox News article explaining why they are right, and their Conservative friends post all the ways they agree. Meanwhile, Liberals post the latest Mother Jones article and their Liberal friends post all the ways the article nails it. Sometimes a brave soul crosses the line, charging into a battle they never intended to win, and everyone goes to bed more assured of their positions and even less likely to understand any opposition.

Meanwhile, there are a few thoughtful people across the spectrum whose voices tend to be drowned out. Here, I'm hoping to open discussions about current events (political, social, global) and discuss them in a way that does a few things:
1) Allows everyone participating to understand the varying angles
2) Brings out the nuances that are anathema to both print and broadcast media
3) Leaves space for thoughtfully undecided people to both participate and develop new ideas
4) Gives everyone the ability to articulate and understand (perhaps even while vehemently disagreeing with) opposing or alternate positions.

So, here are the starting point ground rules (prior to input from participants):

1) Your contributions must be thoughtful. Until I can find a way to enable multiple administrators of the blog, I'm going to delete obviously stupid, jingoistic, inflammatory, or unhelpful additions to the dialogue.
2) Don't talk party politics. I don't care about Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians or Greens or Socialists or anything else. These are shorthand for unthoughtful people to engage in tribal thinking and avoid any real analysis of issues. They are anathema to real understanding and have very little or no place in a discussion between reflective people.

2a) Don't commit the Fallacy of Division-- I hope that many of the people posting here will represent or develop politically eclectic views that can't be captured by resorting to political party affiliations. 

3) The point isn't to win converts. It's to gain understanding (for yourself) and provide an understanding of your own position (for everyone else).
4) Debate, discuss, argue-- dialogue is important, but you're not going to 'win' a conversation here, so don't resort to debate competition tactics of obfuscation, etc. Be clear. Be Concise.
5) Be willing to question your own assumptions about the issues and their implications. Leave pride in the comments section of HuffPo or Breitbart.


I want this to be a collaborative effort to tease out the fundamental issues at stake in politics, society, and global developments. As such, everything explained above is open for change based on input.