The policemen quoted in this story do a valiant job of diverting attention from what they mean to say. They mean to say that they’re afraid that blacks will riot if Obama loses*. What they wind up saying is:
“I think it is a big deal — you got an African-American running and [a] woman running,” he added, in reference to Obama and GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. “Whoever wins it, it will be a national event. We will have more officers on the street in anticipation that things may go south.”
Yes, because there are legitimate concerns that if McCain loses, women across the country will riot. That’s what everyone worries about — women rioting. I think the Greeks wrote about that. Perhaps we should consult them.
*I don’t think I condone what it is they mean to say. Objectively speaking, riots may be more likely this election than in past years because of race. However, the maintenance of an egalitarian democracy entails lots of noble lies, even if those noble lies create real-world consequences. Whether or not black people are more likely to riot after this election, it seems unfortunate to preemptively act like they are. A civil society requires not only non-violence on the part of all citizens, but, equally as important, the presumption of non-violence toward fellow citizens.
The story says rumors of riots are circulating on “right-wing” websites. That may or may not be true; I don’t really get around that much in the blogosphere. The story also quotes a black Republican from Massachusetts, though I have statistics refuting the possibility that such a person exists, so I’ll just presume The Hill made up that quote. Whoever’s circulating the rumors, I can’t say as I approve.