I think we can say that the vast majority of people, regardless of their political stripes, agree that a society has not only the right, but the necessity to develop rules and laws that regulate what individuals and groups can and cannot do.  The argument is over the nature and extent of those rules and laws.  Even most self-proclaimed anarchists and libertarians will conceded (at least in my experience) that there need to be a few basic rules by the society as a whole that need to be enforced by the society as a whole if it going to function (a big sticking point is who composes exactly that society, which decides on those basic rules and then enforces them).

The point is that we are not arguing over whether there should be some kind of governmental police force, or whether there should courts of law, which hand down decisions of guilt and punishment, or whether there should be some body of governance which determines what those dos and do nots are, or in other words telling people what the limits of their behavior are.

Instead we are argue over how the police force should go about enforcing those rules, over who are the guilty and the innocent, over what kinds of punishment should be given, and the manner in which the punished are housed and treated, over which governing body has the legitimacy to make decisions about what is considered right and wrong.

One could spend the rest of one's life delving into these topics, writing about the nuances and reading others' take on those nuances, and basically never fully put one's one around the whole of the matter.  In the end, these topics go to the heart of what it means to be human.  They will inevitably confront one with such heady topics as the possibility of redemption, the nature of justice and the existence of free will and God.

For most people, for most of their day to day lives, there is not much delving into the deeper reaches of these topics.  Regardless of their political stripes, of who they choose to vote for if they choose to vote, the issue of law and society is one of order and safety.  Society is given the responsibility to develop laws that define what is right and wrong and then the responsibility of ensuring that either people are prevented from doing the wrong thing or, if they do, in punishing those people appropriately.

As long seem to be running smoothly, the deeper issues are not pondered, nor are the inner working of the system really questioned.  A key consequence of this that the state - whether it be the FBI, DEA, or FDA on the federal level or the local patrol officer driving by in his or her car are provided a fundamental legitimacy in the eyes of the citizens.

This does not mean that these citizens believe corruption or incompetence doesn't exist, or that there are sometimes abuses, an over-reaching of authority that crosses the line.  It means that when these cases are brought to light there seen as an aberration.  Or for the more cynical among them, the best one can probably hope for.  Regarding this latter group, it can said when one looks at the long stretch of human history, what we have may not be perfect but one would be hard pressed to find an example of some society that did better at it.

And this does not mean any of these folks would say that one should try to do better.  Or that one should take the “boys will be boys” approach and not seek to provide consequences (i.e. punishment) to those within the world of law development and enforcement who choose to cross some line that shouldn’t be crossed.

What it does mean is that people believe that by and large the system itself is okay and that each citizen needs to basically play along with the rules of the game.  What this means is that if a patrol car flashes it lights and requests that pull over, you pull over – even if you believe sincerely at that moment you have done nothing wrong or if you believe that they pulling you over for illegitimate reason.  What you believe may be the case is irrelevant.  The reason for this is that if each citizen was given the authority to make their own call to heed the request to pull over or not, chaos would ensue.

The system in this country works not only works because we assume each individual is innocent until proven guilty, but also because we believe the people operating the mechanisms of the legal system are innocent until proven guilty – that their behavior is driven by sincere intent to maintain the peace within the accepted limits of not only the law, but also of ethics.  We know that is not always the case, just as many of those who are arrested are not innocent.  And sometimes these assumptions allow for abuses to continue, just as allows sometimes the obviously guilty to go free.

So what we are dealing with a system of law and order that isn’t perfect.  As a society we struggle to do the best we can with it, to improve it where we can and root out the “bad apples.”

The point of all this, as the title states, is that there are many people who would be considered liberal in some general conservative-liberal test, but who on matters of law and order tend to side with, or have a proclivity to side with the effort to maintain law and order in society. 

The television series Law & Order actually is one of the great cultural artifacts of American society.  Its enduring popularity reveals not just a fascination with the typical cops and robbers theme of so many tv shows.  It consistently confronted the issues raised over where the limits were both on the law enforcement side and then the legal side.  As far as popular culture offering out there, it did as good a job as any of not taking a particularly liberal or particularly conservative slant on any given topic.

What it did do, however, was to make those who worked in whatever role on the law and order system as basically well-intentioned individuals.  In spite of their personal flaws, in spite of times where personal emotions got the best of them, in spite of times when loyalties made them blind to the facts, etc., they had the best interests of the people, the citizens, the society as a whole, at their primary motivation.

The show was widely popular series in part because there were many of the liberals in this country tuned in each week to watch it and to continue watch it over and over again in re-runs on cable.

There may be some of the regulars here at Dagblog who can guess where I am going with this. 

The latest happenings in Oakland around the occupy movement puts into high relief what I have been talking about recently.  The Occupy activists in Oakland have disavowed the violence that occurred after the thousands were able to march and protest relatively peacefully.  (and the police didn't crack any skulls in the process). 

One particular line in the linked story was:

The street spasm that followed when about 200 people tried to take over a vacant building, however, raised questions about whether a movement with no organizational structure and no high-profile leaders can — or should — do anything to stop those they called troublemakers.

Bob Norkus at the Occupy Boston camp said the riots didn't represent the broader movement and likely wouldn't have a lasting effect on it, either. The movement is still evolving and mistakes are inevitable, he said.

It "has to be nonviolent, or else it will just end. We won't get the support," he said. "It doesn't mean you can't agitate people. But you can't also be breaking windows and burning."

That support of wheich Mr. Norkus speaks is I believe in large part from the law and order liberals.  These folks do not respond well to images such as this:

 

People speak of how OWS and the other occupy actions has changed the narrative in this country for the better.  And I would agree.  But there is really no one grand narrative.  The narrative is composed of zillions of smaller interacting narratives on individual and collective levels.  People respond to new text and images through pre-existing narratives.  A fundamental facet of those narratives, much of which is buried beneath the surface consciousness, revolves around issues of law and order.

 

It isn't enough to simply state after the fact that there were rogue individuals or groups who don't represent the Occupy movement did this or that bad thing.  Those within the movement have to actively and aggressively define themselves both in words and actions in a way that makes it as clear as possible the violence that occurred most recently in completely and utterly unacceptable (along with the more minor smashing of windows and vandalism of small businesses, not to mention the big corporation.

 

I find it discouraging that:

The group released a statement Thursday night saying it doesn't support vandalism but would not take an official position until Friday's night "General Assembly" meeting.

given everything that has already happened in Oakland, and the fact they organized a march on the corporations, along with an attempt to shut down a port, and they had not already come to any decision collectively about something like vandalism.

Now they may not care one way or other of gaining and sustaining the support of the law and order liberals.  That is their choice.  But the larger issue is that the Occupy movement is seen as one movement.  The blessing and the curse is what happens in Oakland reflects on New York, what happens in Denver reflects on Atlanta.   This is the blessing and the curse of allowing the movement to unfold organically, by not having a defined leadership and mission.  Ultimately, so far given the much of the rhetoric coming from some of those in the movement, the actions of those 200 in Oakland was as much a part of the movement as the actions of the thousands who marched peacefully prior.

It will be interesting to see how November 5th goes.   The fact that a number of the more visible protesters have embraced the "Vendatta" mask is troubling.  Creating actions of confrontations between protesters and banks/corporations when the non-violence and peaceful path of protest has not been fully embraced by the movement, where those who have no political intent but rather merely seek mayhem can so easily latch onto the actions, is a recipe for disaster. 

The world is, indeed, watching.  Which means that the law and order liberals will be, too.