There’s something peculiar about watching the ongoing protests in New York City these days. With colorful signs and spirited chants, they promote ideas that can sometimes be downright befuddling. Recently, there was a particularly eye-opening moment when a protester suggested seizing buildings from the rich because, apparently, if the wealthy want to leave the city, they’re not welcome anyway. This line of thinking even includes making it illegal for rich folks to leave town. Now, a scheme like this sure sounds like it was cooked up without any understanding of economics. Basic supply and demand might be lost in translation here, because who would pour money into building apartments that might one day be confiscated? The result would likely be tighter housing supplies, not more affordable homes.
In fact, it might be wise for some of these protesters to take a step back and crack open a textbook or two on economics. Understanding socialism and capitalism, where one’s choices directly affect supply and demand, could be a useful exercise before chanting those slogans. Of course, backing sound economic principles with coherent plans isn’t the norm for these protesters, so maybe economics takes a back seat when emotions run the show.
Another highlight is the audacious suggestion to replace ICE with immigrants themselves. The rationale here? Well, immigrants could apparently impart their wisdom on how they managed to cross the border safely. It’s an interesting idea, albeit one that teeters on sheer comedy. This approach overlooks the rule of law entirely, bypassing the orderly process many legal immigrants have embraced for generations. Claiming that those who skirt the laws should then enforce them, well, it provokes a hearty chuckle or two.
Listening to these protesters and their reasoning reveals a disconnect that seems almost deliberate. Perhaps there’s some persuasive talk behind the scenes, but there’s no denying the influence of incendiary rhetoric propelled by some Democratic leaders. The comparisons of former President Trump to pernicious ideologies come across as not only unfounded but as a means to escalate rhetoric into hyperbole. Such comparisons have been thrown around with frequency, not just in politics, but in countless heated exchanges.
In the midst of these fiery debates, one must wonder what happens when these groups finally achieve some form of their proclaimed victory. Often, they refuse to acknowledge any progress or success, especially if it means giving credit where it’s due. Take, for example, some of the effective measures in immigration enforcement; even those who opposed Trump would rather shift the credit elsewhere than acknowledge any semblance of triumph on his part. In this world, it seems that logic checks out at the door where emotional fervor and finger-pointing reign supreme.
