I'm wondering why its primarily left wing people that protest, interrupt speeches and try to disrupt private events? Over and over at Trump's speeches, left wingers interrupted and had outbursts. During the confirmation hearings there are continuous protesters for every appointment. Every few minutes someone stands up and causes a scene with some outfit screaming. There were protesters that didn't allow Trump to give a speech in Chicago and orchestrate and organize in order to stifle an event, speech or confirmation hearing. I'm just wondering why you never see conservatives disrupting hearings and speeches? A few people quietly picketing is one thing, but to continually try to get on tv and stop a speech or hearing from happening something i rarely see from anyone but lefties.
Maybe they are more sincere and adamant in their beliefs and the other side is more trollish and just wants to see 'libural tears'?
I just think you have selective memory. There was widespread protest from the Tea Party in regards to the auto-bailout for instance. It's funny how the GOP wanted auto companies to fail back then, but want it to succeed when Trump is in power.
I guarantee you that the EXACT same tea party half-witts protesting the bail out were all in for Trump paying off Carrier to keep a few hundred jobs.
Cliven Bundy's boys put snipers up to shoot federal agents if they tried to enforce a judge's ruling and members of the right (inculding Sean Hannity) heralded him as a hero against liberals trying to force big government down the common man's throat. Tea Party protests were everywhere. Now I do think it's fair to point out that when the tea party starts protesting they may march and carry racist and hateful signs, but they never burned down cities or looted or got into mass violence with police, etc. Why? Who knows. Maybe they are just better people. Maybe they don't really have anything to be angry about. It's a mystery.
OP, we don't agree a lot politically, but I think it's a fair and interesting question. And I think it goes all the way back to the 1960's, TBH. Those on the left historically want to see change (Obummer's mantra even) and progress (as defined by them as changing a bunch of things to be more liberal). Conservatives, starting in the 1960's really, wanted things to go back to the Eisenhower days of the late 1950's, I think. And Reagan kind of brought that back a bit, and then now the Carrot in Chief is promising that, vaguely, with MAGA. I think conservatives, to generalize, see a benefit in keeping things the way they are or the way they "used to be," even though we over-simplify the past. So when they protest, like the Tea Party, they are less likely to get super rowdy. Their self-righteous positions are often a form of stasis, where the self-righteous approach of the left is necessarily disruptive of "normal" life, which they see as broken and unjust. I've been reading more and more about the 1960's, and it's simply breathtaking how many of our issues today are just clear reflections of issues from that decade. It's worth noting, by the way, as we approach MLK Jr. day, that there are two often-overlooked factors from his life. 1. He admitted that non-violence was only going to effective when others took violent measures against them -- he complained to the media that they only covered his movement when they were being beaten and attacked, but he finally embraced that and even planned to make the violence of his enemies happen, even while not encouraging violence from his followers. 2. By the time he was killed, he had fallen out of favor in a lot of the leftist community. People openly jeered him at some of his last talks, and some people referred to his non-violent ways with eye-rolls, b/c they just didn't see the progress they wanted.
Another interesting point about MLK, it is a point of annoyance and mockery for many on the right that he has his own holiday. I saw a lot of posts on Facebook this year from people on the right that were celebrating that some school districts had an extra day off apparently for President's day and MLK only got 1. I can speak from my personal experience that I know quite a few small business owners who get mad every year about MLK day existing and use colorful language about it. The rest of your post is worthy but needs no analysis. I think you nailed it.
This post isn't true at all. There are many cases (videos are on youtube, go check it out) where Obama has been interrupted or heckled during his speeches. protesters, interrupters, crazy hecklers exists on both sides. I will concede that the gravity of the interruption is a bit heavier on the left side if only because of the amount of participants.
A lot of the protesters who interrupt Obama are actually leftists though. Other than "You Lie" I'm trying to think of a time he got truly harassed by right wing protesters? His protesters have been anarchists, far leftists who don't think he does enough, the anti-war Code Pink ladies, etc. All leftists.
OP, it's by definition. "Right" represents "conservative." Think about what "conservative" means. Think about what "conserve" means. Conservatives want to conserve the status quo. People don't generally protest in order to keep everything the same as it already is. "Left" people are, by definition, not conservative. They want changes to the status quo. They are sometimes called "progressives." "Progressives" are defined as people who seek some kind of change. People who want change must use energy to create change. Change requires action. This is actually a physical law.
Well it's because the left tends to do a lot of their "thinking" with their emotions and people ruled by their emotions are more likely to engage in that kind of political temper tantrum. Now that said, there are absolutely people like that from all political leanings, but there's just so many more overly emotional naive little kids supporting leftist ideology that it seems like they are the only ones doing it.
I repeat: change requires energy/action from an external source. This is a physical law. "The left" are defined as those who seek change.
I think you're right to look back to the 60s, but I don't know if it really fully answers the question. My intuition is that it isn't merely about conservatives being conservative in their form of protest because of conservative values. Maybe that's a part. But, I think modern-day liberal protesters see themselves as descendants of the civil rights and antiwar protesters in the '60s (who were themselves descended from unionists). They feel like inheritors of ideas of civil disobedience and nonviolent protest. And, there's probably a lot of institutional inheritance as well where the MO of protest from the civil rights organizations were adopted by pro-choice organizations and then by environmental organizations and so on. So, as these political ideas get bundled or allied together and the same people and institutions take lessons learned in one fight and apply it to another, the methodology is proven and refined and optimized. Meanwhile, activists who find themselves in opposition to these movements don't ideologically connect themselves with the liberal protests in the past and strive intentionally to distinguish themselves in their methods. They may adopt some of the same methods (stupid poster board signs), but the ones that really pissed them off when liberals had done it (like interrupting and getting thrown out by security) they really don't want to associate themselves with. And then they have a big circle jerk about how they don't do that kind of stuff, so the idea is reinforced among conservatives the same way civil disobedience is reinforced among liberals. I'd also point out that some protests are more amenable to disruptive, anti-social behavior than others. When you have no effective allies in government -- like the protesters disrupting hearings now -- making an ass of yourself on TV might be the most effective thing you can do. When you have representatives in government, have organization, have voting power, you're not desperate. You might do some protests to show your strength and to attract supporters, but you're looking to your political power inside the system to get you what you want. Look at the pro-life movement as an example. They did plenty of sober-minded political action and nonprofit organizing. But, that alone was falling well short of their goals. So a faction was highly, highly disruptive. Blocking abortion clinics, harassing doctors, harassing patients, and the occasional murder thrown in to protect the unborn (for those who will say the murderers don't represent the pro-life movement, I agree, just like I agree that Micah Johnson doesn't represent BLM and Osama bin Laden doesn't represent Islam and a protester interrupting a confirmation hearing doesn't represent liberals). Why couldn't they be calm and clean up after themselves like Tea Partiers? Because that wasn't working.
the left has always been for controlling speech. Fairness doctrine, fake news labels, etc... shouting over someone who trying to speak is the same thing. Im gonna stop people from hearing you be screaming real loud. Same logic as North Korea really control what people hear/see.
