We all recall the summer of 2022 when the Roe vs. Wade rollback was roiling the country. Ardent abortion supporters were congregating outside of the homes of various Supreme Court justices, and as many were wondering how this was allowed, there were many in the press and on the Democratic side of the political aisle lending understanding if not outright support of this practice. 

As some were asking why authorities were not doing something others were declaring these people were on public sidewalks exercising their right to peacefully assemble. Even going as far as the White House we saw words of muted concern for safety, as long as the protestors were peaceful. The undercurrent message behind this tepid addressing of the disruption of the private lives of these justices as well as their neighborhood was, “Well, they have it coming.” 

Even when one individual was arrested after traveling the country with weapons to threaten Brett Kavanaugh, the reaction was notably constrained. That incident was widely reported, but there was nothing much in the way of accompanying outrage. Mostly, it was along the lines of, "We condemn this act, but as long as the others are peaceful there is not much to be done."

At Politico, they joined in with this type of shrug-filled coverage, lending a rather neutral at best level of approach to these episodes. When marchers gathered with bullhorns and drums in the neighborhoods, they were conducting a “peaceful grassroots demonstration," according to the outlet. In another report around these protests in the hearings held concerning what was to be done, DOJ officials were quoted extensively leaning on First Amendment protections.

In still another article, Politico was certain to give quotes from then-White House press secretary Jenn Psaki, voicing how the administration was stepping back and allowing these protests surrounding the private residences. 

Democrats have been in a challenging spot — from some lawmakers pointing to past demonstrations at their own private residences to White House press secretary Jen Psaki suggesting the protests were OK as long as they were peaceful. “I know that there’s an outrage right now, I guess, about protests that have been peaceful to date — and we certainly continue to encourage that — outside of judges’ homes. And that’s the president’s position,” Psaki said.

There were plenty of voices at this time speaking as to how this type of behavior is not only unacceptable but setting a dangerous precedent. Starting with how these protests could be viewed as attempting to influence the decisions made by those on the court, you already have a problematic atmosphere. However, involving the private lives and property of the individuals is itself a threat. Saying, “Well as long as they are peaceful…” only encourages the mobs, which have a history of being the opposite.

Well, now we have these groups, which have been encouraged to believe that homestead gatherings are perfectly acceptable, gathering anew, and would you look at this: A voice at Politico now finds this manner of protest unacceptable. Michael Schaffer writes about how pro-Palestine groups from the left have been gathering at the home of Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Mr. Schaffer is not happy to see this — at all. 

This group has formed an encampment outside of Blinken’s property, and when cars leave or arrive they spring into action from their tents, waving placards, shouting chants, and dumping out blood-red fluids onto the road. It is unseemly to Schaffer that Blinken and his family have to endure this level of peaceful protesting. He almost sounds surprised.

Spectacles like the one outside Blinken’s spread on the Virginia side of the Potomac have become common enough that it’s hard to remember when the idea of protesting at a Washington official’s house seemed novel.

Schaffer calls it the “ugliest protest trend” as well as “a sign of something troubling in our political culture.” Sure, a probable accurate statement, but look at the manner in which they have been encouraged. When authorities are hesitant to take action, politicians up to the White House refuse to criticize, and the press plays along with the messaging, then where is there to be seen anything to discourage these actions? You do not get an “ugly trend” without a level of permissiveness.

Look how this week we had those indolent climate protestors vandalizing the display of the founding documents, and security guards stood beside them placidly, not taking any action. These dolts have been encouraged by a coddling press, certain to get their messages and images out to the public. If there is any wonder how the encouragement works: If you dump soup onto a priceless work of art, you will get to sit with Steve Inskeep on NPR and deliver your propaganda to the taxpayer audience.

Or, if you camp outside the home of the Secretary of State, you can get Politico’s attention. When it was SCOTUS enduring the Home Owners Association violators, Politico seemed rather okay with these actions. Now we get Schaffer intent on feigning outrage over these tasteless acts around the children of (Democrat) administration officials. If Mike is truly bothered by these activities, he might want to have a word with his editorial team.

Your message about the harassment of family members who have no manner with which to influence a particular cause is a reasoned one. The presentation of such, however, is entirely contradictory. It is rather ridiculous to read through Schaffer’s hand-wringing about these kinds of demonstrations and ruminating how we got this level of protest, when his piece is decorated with no fewer than 10 photographs of the protestors! 

Yes, it is a real mystery how this is happening, Michael. Do you want to find a pathway to stemming the amount of these unseemly demonstrations and stop them from becoming an ugly trend? Maybe having you stop giving them the media attention they desperately crave would be Step One.