“[F]rom now on,” US president Donald Trump wrote in his Truth Social temper tantrum over anti-ICE protests in Lose Angeles, “MASKS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to be worn at protests.”

I agree with what Trump’s saying … but not with what he means.

He’s ordering protesters not to wear masks (they’ll ignore him, as they should).

He should be ordering the police and military personnel across from those protesters to uncover their faces.

Over the last several years, it’s become common to see photos and videos of supposed “law enforcement personnel” conducting operations while wearing balaclavas and other face coverings to hide their identities. Not just while working “crowd control” at demonstrations, but when busting into homes and businesses to investigate alleged crimes, serve warrants, etc.

That needs to end, now, for two reasons.

The first reason is that it’s unsafe for everyone involved.

Hypothetical:

You’re going about your lawful personal business when someone wearing a ski mask and dark jacket with large lettering on the back runs at you, waving a gun and yelling “Freeze! Police!” (or “ICE!” or “FBI!” or whatever).

Is he or she actually a police officer of some kind?

Or are you about to be mugged, raped, murdered, or some combination of those things?

If you weren’t conducting yourself violently at the moment of contact,  you’d have a solid “stand your ground” case if you whipped out a handgun and put that person down. Your fear of  death or grievous bodily harm in such a situation would be entirely reasonable.

If you weren’t conducting yourself violently at the moment of contact, the proper approach by a real police officer would be to politely introduce himself or herself, with face uncovered and service weapon holstered, produce photo identification matching said face, and state his or her business with you.

We’ve seen a recent spate of arrests for impersonating ICE agents and other “law enforcement personnel” while detaining and even raping others. Those incidents may or may not have involved masks, but letting real cops wear masks makes impersonating them easier — and their jobs harder if onlookers justifiably intervene versus unidentifiable masked assailants.

The second reason is about who owes what to whom.

As a private citizen, who you are and what you look like is none of the government’s business until and unless there’s probable cause to believe you’ve committed, or are in the act of committing, a crime.

As a government employee, who a cop is and what he or she looks like is entirely the public’s business any time we want it to be. The cop at least pretends to work for — “serve and protect” — us, while collecting a paycheck from the taxes we fork over.

We’re the bosses, at least in theory. They’re our employees, at least in theory.  The idea that they’re entitled to hide their identities from us while waving guns at us and ordering us around gets that relationship completely bass-ackward.

We shouldn’t have to show your faces. They should.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

US president Donald Trump, Axios reports, “is edging closer than ever to invoking the Insurrection Act, driven by a vision of executive power free from the guardrails, governors and generals who stifled him in 2020.”

“The people causing the problems are professional agitators,” he says. “They’re insurrectionists.”

He’s not wrong. He’s a professional agitator, he’s an “insurrectionist,” and he’s causing the problems.

On June 6, members of the public confronted members of the “Immigration and Customs Enforcement” gang in Los Angeles in the act of abducting 44 people. The gang members responded to the attempted rescue  with “flash bang” grenades. On the following day, the gang escalated to tear gas and pepper balls  in nearby Paramount.

If one side was “rioting,” both were.

At that point, Trump announced he was “federalizing” 2,000 California National Guard members — to protect the ICE gangbangers from the public, not vice versa. He’s since added 700 US Marines to the Federal Gang Member Protection Task Force.

What are Trump and co-conspirators like ICE shot-caller Tom Homan, “Homeland Security” secretary Kristi Noem, and Pentagon honcho Pete Hegseth trying to accomplish in Los Angeles?

They’re hoping for a “Reichstag fire” incident they can use as an excuse to invoke the Insurrection Act … not to put down an “insurrection,” but to complete the “insurrection” Trump unsuccessfully attempted in 2020-21 and resumed on his return to office.

And if they can get a Horst Wessel out of the deal, they’ll happily accept. Wessel was a German thug who engaged in similar street fighting, on a similar side. After he was killed (supposedly for his political activity, but more likely over his side gig as a pimp), he became a convenient martyr and the Nazi party adopted a song he wrote as its anthem. When, not if, an ICE thug finishes his or her shift in a body bag instead of over beer and sportsball, we’ll never hear the end of it.

Personally, I’d rather it didn’t come to that.

On the other hand, California governor Gavin Newsom’s lawsuit over Trump’s actions is weak tea. The courts have already demonstrated their deference to Trump’s lawlessness; when they don’t he just whines and tries to ignore them.

The better answer to the occupation of LA is to greet it with institutional boycotts and individual ostracism.

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power should cut off all services to facilities used by the occupation forces. Make them truck in their own water and generators if they insist on staying.

Local institutions should refuse service to those affiliated with the occupation forces.

“No, that bottle of water / cheeseburger / latte isn’t for sale … at least not to you.”

“No, you can’t use the restroom.”

“No, this church does not serve communion to those in an unrepentant state of mortal sin.”

“We reserve the right to refuse service.”

“Out. Now.”

Residents shouldn’t offer them anything but the cold shoulder.

When your opponent has heavier weapons than you, nonviolent methods work better than “rioting.” Don’t give Trump the excuse he’s after.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“Is it time to create a new political party in America,” Elon Musk asks in a Twitte … er, “X” … poll, “that actually represents the 80% in the middle?” As of this writing, 80.4% of respondents say “yes,” which seems to track well with whatever his definition of “the middle” might be.

He’s far from the first to suggest, or even try to organize, a “third” party, but the idea as he frames it is likely doomed.

America’s historical byways are strewn with the wreckage of “third” parties. Darcy G. Richardson’s book series on the phenomenon, “Others,” ably and engagingly documents that history, but there’s just so much of it that he’s only reached the era of the Great Depression after multiple volumes.

Why the long history of failure — the last “third” party to rise to power in the United States was the Republican Party, which replaced the Whigs in the 1850s, mostly over the issue of slavery?

Part of it is about how American elections work. They’re “first past the post plurality” elections, for single-representative districts. Whoever gets the most votes wins the seat, everyone else loses.

Duverger’s Law tells us that in such a situation, a maximum of two parties will win substantial power as fear of “vote-splitting” keeps voters stuck to perceived “lesser evils” that “can win.” Some parliamentary systems allow small parties to gain a few seats and hopefully grow; ours locks those small parties completely out.

But wait! What about “the 80% “in the middle?” Why don’t they just rise up and throw the Republican and Democratic bums out?

Because “the 80% in the middle” don’t really exist as a  coalition or constituency with shared interests and positions, that’s why.

The large percentages of voters who describe themselves as “moderates” or “centrists” mean different things by those words.

One “moderate” or “centrist” supports robust Medicaid funding AND opposes subsidies for electrical vehicles.

Two doors down, another “moderate” or “centrist” wants Medicaid cuts AND wants that tax credit for his Tesla (looking at you, Elon).

Two MORE doors down, third and fourth “moderates” or “centrists” in the same household love, or hate, both Medicaid AND EV subsidies.

Keep going down the street and adding issues to the mix. There’s no especially large group that both feels the same way on all the issues and places the same level of importance on all the issues.

Those “moderates” and “centrists” end up picking the “major” parties that offer them the most, disagree with them the least, and might actually win.

The most “successful” third parties are 1) small and 2) ideological. Their supporters agree on a few principles, fight hard, lose almost every election, and occasionally move the needle on an issue with the public and the “major” parties (if you support same-sex marriage and/or legal marijuana, thank a Libertarian).

Always a bridesmaid, never a bride. That’s the story of “third parties” in America. Politics, for us, is the occasional new dress and unlimited drinks at the wedding reception. Elon won’t catch the bouquet either.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY