Thread by @ClaireBerlinski

I agree completely with @NTenzer when he says that violence is consubstantial with this movement. It's not the word I would have chosen in English, but it's correct: the violence is now inherent; it can't be cordoned off or dismissed as "not truly representative."

https://twitter.com/JL7508/status/1082409120219709440

Allowing them sack Paris once a week as a form of "legitimate democratic expression" is about as a good an idea as letting the Sturmabteilung and the Rotfrontkämpferbund have a regular go at each other and the police on the streets of Berlin.

The police should *never* be so undermanned that they're forced to retreat. They're there to enforce the law. No free nation can retreat from that and remain free.

The government is not properly weighing the psychological impact of its response. When people who are enamored of violence repeatedly see the Republic physically attacked and overwhelmed, it does not suggest to them, "We should sit down, be reasonable, and engage in dialogue."

It encourages them. These street brawls, week after week, are beneath the dignity of the State. This strategy will result in more injuries, more deaths. This *creates demand* for authoritarian governance. This cycle needs to be interrupted now, while it can be.

It can only be stopped by putting enough cops on the street, in every place where peaceful protesters gather, that if it becomes violent, the cops can immediately and easily overwhelm the militias. Anyone who participates in the violence needs to be locked up.

The only way to do that is by declaring a State of Emergency, so static targets can be protected by the military, allowing the CRS to behave as the mobile force it's designed to be. Yes, this would be a very big deal. Yes, people will howl that it's authoritarian.

But if they don't establish order under *their* rules--the laws of the Republic-- now, the calls for order will come from a far more sinister camp. Whoever convinces the public that he--or she--can establish order will prevail.

Does Macron have the wisdom to see this?

If the State fails to demonstrate its lawful authority now, you will have true authoritarianism. Macron must not allow that. In no scenario is this violence anything but sterile and pointless, just as it was in 1848. Terrible for France in every way. An act of self-mutilation.

Mélenchon, clearly enamored of the violence, can't see how badly this will end for him when a "Party off Order" takes charge. Why doesn't he see it? Does he really believe the claptrap about the inevitability of socialist revolution?

He's wrong. The people who sugar-coat the violence and say, "It's just what France does" are nuts.

The government's soft-touch approach to this violence is wrong. We don't live in a world where everyone responds reasonably to reasonable requests.

A lunatic contingent of France--certainly no more than 5,000 people--wishes to destroy the lives of the other 67 million people who live here. They need to receive a *much* stronger response than, "We are calm and we would like to listen to you. Here's an online poll."

They're not behaving this way because they want to talk things over. They're not behaving this way because they have legitimate grievances. They're not behaving this way because they're starving and crying out for bread. They're behaving this way because they are violent.

The more violence they see, participate in, and hear about, the more excited they are at the prospect of it. When they see video clips of thugs attacking and overpowering the police, don't make the mistake of thinking they're reacting the way most people would to that.

It doesn't make them think, "My God, that's terrible, where did this movement go wrong?" Those inclined to have that reaction have already had it--they had it when the Arc de Triomphe was desecrated. Those who remain are not people who are revolted by violence. To the contrary.

Scenes of violence don't make them want to vomit. It makes them salivate.

@EmmanuelMacron has not asked me for my advice, but were he to ask, I'd say: You've reached as many people as you can with appeals for calm and efforts to respond to their demands.

You're now stuck with a contingent that is doing this for the sake of it: Because they can. Because they like it. Because violence gives them a real kick.

You can't just say you deplore this and wring your hands. Not if you wish to stay in power, anyway.

The state must have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Are you worried about what would happen to your poll numbers if you declared a state of emergency? About all the Benalla jokes and sniggers? Don't be.

The numbers will skyrocket. It's the dithering and ineffectiveness that will do you in.

You're in charge. Act like it. If you can't, step down and let someone else do it. Otherwise, you are handing the most vile demagogues in France a hand-wrapped gift.

If you can't get Benalla under control and ensure order on the streets, someone else will do it. You were elected because people didn't want the far-right to come to power. You have a mandate to keep it out of power.

It's almost a lawlike rule of history: When a democratic state is too weak to prevent street clashes among cops, the far-left, and the far-right, the far-right wins. You were elected to ensure that *didn't* happen. So don't let it.

If you need any further advice, Monsieur le Président, je suis à votre écoute ... et je vous prie de bien vouloir agréer, Monsieur le Président, l’expression de mes honnêtes et respectueuses salutations.

@threadreaderapp , would you please unroll this? Thank you very much for being a good bot.