Archive

ShareThis Page
Moral confusion in Ferguson | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

Moral confusion in Ferguson

Tribune-Review
| Friday, November 28, 2014 8:57 p.m

“It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

Edmund Burke’s insight returned to mind while watching cable news coverage of the rampage in Ferguson, Mo., after St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch announced that Officer Darren Wilson would not be indicted in the shooting death of Michael Brown.

The rioting, looting, arson and gunfire that began after McCulloch relayed the grand jury’s decision, a decision long predicted and anticipated, revealed the unspoken truth about Ferguson. The problem is not its 53-man police department. The problem is the hoodlum element those Ferguson officers have to police, who, on Monday night, burned and pillaged the stores on the main streets of their own community.

In the wake of the Ferguson riot, some seek absolution for the rioters by redistributing responsibility to the police and prosecutor. Why, they demand, did McCulloch wait until 8 p.m., St. Louis time, to report the grand jury findings?

Well, perhaps it was to allow time for kids to get home from school and off the playgrounds, for businesses to close, for rush hour to end. Hoodlums from Ferguson earlier stormed onto I-70 and shut down the Interstate — the way home for tens of thousands of St. Louis residents.

Whatever the reason, it does not excuse the rampant criminality that lasted until midnight. “No justice, no peace!” has been a howl of the protesters. What they mean is strikingly clear: Michael Brown, one of us, is dead. Therefore, this cop, Darren Wilson, must go on trial for his life.

But this is not justice in America. We have a legal process to determine who was in the right and who was in the wrong, and whether a crime had been committed by a policeman in the use of deadly force.

That 10 o’clock split screen of President Obama in the White House briefing room calling for peaceful protest and greater efforts by police to understand “communities of color,” side by side with graphic video of mob mayhem in Ferguson, tells a sad truth.

America’s election of a black president has not closed and, for some, has not even narrowed the racial divide. We are now half a century on from the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Blacks have risen out of poverty and the working class to become successes as actors, artists, athletes, executives, politicians, TV anchors, journalists, scholars, generals, authors, etc. But if the hate we saw on the streets of Ferguson and heard from many voices on Monday night is a reflection of sentiment in the black community, then the racial divide in some parts of America is as great as ever.

The morning after the riot, President Cornell William Brooks of the NAACP called the grand jury decision not to indict Wilson “salt in the wound of a brutal injustice. … The people in this community and across the country are … saddened and outraged.”

Where, from the president on down, do we hear any condemnation of what went on in Ferguson Monday night and of those responsible, coupled with a clarion call for the restoration of law and order in Ferguson, as an essential precondition of any civilized society?

Pat Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.