TL;DR summary quote from the Manhattan Institute:

"Today’s left-wing agitators deploy random acts of lawlessness designed to inconvenience and disrupt as many civilians as possible, hoping to pressure them to get the government to change course. This tactic is reasonably described as a form of terrorism, though the activists aren’t murderous like al-Qaida or Hamas—they don’t use guns, bombs, or threats of unpredictable bloodshed. Instead, they engage in civil terrorism."

I disagree with the policy, but I also question the strategy.

The interesting thing about going after DEI and protests so early in the move right wards, is these behaviors galvanize folks against the left. Four years is a long time for folks memory to fade, and if DEI and Protests aren’t happening as much, I think it warms people up to the return of left-wing governance.

If I was on the right and trying to maintain power. I would attack DEI while also finding ways to keep it in place structurally. Harvard as a perceived enemy promoting DEI is much more useful to the right than a Harvard that is perceived as politically neutral (to top it off, the underlying structural ideology is probably still in place, they just cut the head off)

But I think most voters hate violent protest. To try and get rid of it feels like a strategic misstep.

Surely the author would oppose a law banning a protest within 200 feet of the mosque that was just shot up in San Diego then. Or is that different than the NY law for some reason?