First the hard part, then the harder part.

If you're a conservative, you're probably waiting patiently for the furor to die down. You won't be shouting or carrying placards any time soon. You have a nagging sense that dialogue via protest signs falls short of rational discourse, however sympathetic you may be to some of those slogans.

I have always believed that the less hard part (though it's seldom if ever easy) is identifying the problem. The harder part is agreeing on the solution. 

Protests identify the problem. They are marked by fervor, single-mindedness, and a certain healthy simplicity. But when we come to the next stage, the solving stage, all this breaks down. Complication sets in. Nuance sets in, and even deviations from the prevailing orthodoxy. Infighting, allegiance-testing, factionalism. Utopia is postponed once again.

I am not suggesting that this is necessarily the way of all protest movements. But it is one way that things sometimes evolve. The most extreme example would be the French Revolution, I suppose. But extremes are not the norm, they are the extremes. Most protest movements don't provoke the next Robespierre. If the system responds in such a way that people believe that progress is possible within that system, perhaps protests are transformed into true political movements. Politics, then, can act to channel protest into what is hoped will be constructive directions.

I not only abhor violence, I distrust it. I don't think it accomplishes anything. I also think that attempts to rationalize violence are seldom entirely honest. Oh, and I also distrust "Law & Order" responses to violence. The whole business seems like an upsurge of evil. Perhaps it's time to finally read Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France.