Month: January 2026

When I was a kid we played “Capture the Flag” in our youth group at church a lot. Our church’s yard had a sidewalk running right down the middle, and it made a great “no-man’s land.” We’d have people from both teams come right up to, and even walk along, the sidewalk. If you were standing on it you could set one foot into the other team’s territory without fear of being tagged out. As soon as you left the safety of the sidewalk, though, you were fair game.

We’d try different tactics to try to get an advantage over the other team. We’d have one or two people charge the boundary but stop before crossing it, drawing attention while someone further down the line raced into enemy territory. We’d swarm the boundary, but then have all but one or two people stop before crossing. The idea was to provoke the defenders to jump after these people, and then others from the horde would see their chance and join the assault while the defenders’ attention was diverted.

Usually there’d be a small handful of people on either team that were focused on strategy. You also had a portion who didn’t much care for strategy, but instead just looked for opportunities to start trouble. Then finally, you had what I’d call the “reluctant participants.” They didn’t really want to play this game, so they were just sort of enduring it until it was over.

Most of the provocative tactics involved coming right up to that line and ratcheting up the tension. The strategic thinkers didn’t intend to cross it, but they also knew that in the heat of the moment, there would be enthusiastic teammates who would take it upon themselves to muster up the extra zeal to do what others didn’t seem willing or able to do. For the strategists it was partly manipulation, but it was also partly to see if they could get anything useful out of the unplanned developments. If a teammate was able to grab the flag and get back, so much the better…the team won. If, on the other hand, they got hurt somehow during the assault, the rest of the team got to grandstand and point fingers at how aggressively and unsportsmanlike the defending team was playing. The manipulators of the group were able to crank up the tension, inspire others to “cross that line,” and if any of their teammates got hurt in the process, they’d be able to say “well this wasn’t my fault, I never told anybody to do anything like that.”

We’ve got the same kind of thing happening in protests all around the country. Right now the hot-button issue is whether to interfere with ICE operations. I’m not sure how to state this any clearer: the law is the law; if you have an issue with a given law, you should focus on getting it changed. Interfering with law enforcement operations is illegal; if you interfere, you’re guilty of a crime. You’re an accomplice. It shouldn’t be a surprise that you’ll be treated like a criminal during the response. When you resist or provoke law enforcement officers, they have no idea who you are, what your intent is, or how violent you are. Since they have zero insight into those things, if you get into a confrontation which looks to be escalating, they’re forced to assume you’re willing to escalate further and faster than they are. It’s a failure of common sense to ratchet up the tension with someone who’s legally authorized to use deadly force if they feel threatened.

Where I take issue is the politicians’ intentional manipulation of the masses. Did you ever see the classic movie “The Sting” with Paul Newman and Robert Redford? They were two con men trying to pull off a big score, and they had a large cast of supporting characters. They had a visual signal among those in the know…kind of a brushing of the finger along the nose. It was sort of a wink and a nod to others who were in on the con. Politicians seem to be intentionally cranking up the pressure on the issue, stopping just short of calling for violence. Their winks and secret signals tell the organizers to set the stage. The mob mentality which comes along with protests takes it from there, and those who are a little more enthusiastic than others end up crossing the line of safety.

This persistent state of elevated hostility is how we get assassination attempts and fatal confrontations with law enforcement. Then, after something tragic has occurred, people blame the other side of provoking the situation. This foments more tension and hate, further perpetuating the problem.

How do we stop the madness of this cycle? I’m not sure there’s a simple answer to that. First and foremost, don’t contribute to an angry environment. That goes for discussions at work, discussions among your most trusted inner circle, anywhere you go…attack ideas, not people. Squash or redirect discussions that focus animosity on people. Ideas, not people, should be the subject of criticism. Secondly, hold your elected officials accountable. The people you voted for shouldn’t be out there stoking an atmosphere of violence and be able to avoid responsibility for it. Let them know you don’t approve. This is an uphill battle, because hot-button issues are good for fund-raising; it’s often not in a politician’s best interest to tone things down or actually solve problems, because if you solve problems, you can’t run on them in the next election. You may need to call your elected officials’ office so often they start recognizing who you are by the sound of your voice.

As Americans, we enjoy a lot of freedoms. Not every country allows its citizens to criticize the government, or to assemble in protest. I think we’ve taken some things for granted and pushed things too far. We’re still fellow countrymen (and neighbors), even if we don’t always agree. Don’t buy into the idea that if someone disagrees with you, you have to write off everything about them. We can still get along with each other even when we see things differently, and that’s one of the hallmarks of being American, and one of the things that makes our country great.