The recent over-reactions of municipal and campus police  against the Occupy Wall Street movements have produced some sickening videos.

Add the incessant degradation of these protesters by the political right, and the resulting impression is frighteningly similar to the “official reaction” of the various  governments impacted by the Arab Spring, minus the bullets.

These are not protesters with legitimate grievances, the familiar narrative goes, but thugs, socialists and misfits threatening  all that is right and true. And as such, they deserve whatever they receive at the hands of the authorities.

In a conversation with Megan Kelley, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly defended the police of  UCDavis  who repeatedly sprayed the seated and arm-locked  protesters with pepper spray as a reasonable response to the students’ protest, given their liberal biases. Kelley’s assertion that the pepper spray was “a food product, essentially” has drawn criticism by many, but in reality it is O’Reilly’s dismissive treatment that I found most objectionable.

“I don’t think we have the right to Monday-morning quarterback the police,” O’Reilly says, “particularly at a place like UC Davis, which is a fairly liberal campus.”

I recall all too clearly how President Nixon and others expressed hatred for the anti-VietNam War protesters.  I recall the Kent State shootings in which twenty-five or more National Guardsmen opened fire with live ammunition, killing four students and wounding many others.

Later, I remember watching in disbelief as the 1968 Democratic Convention became the stage for a vicious police action against thousands of anti-war protesters who brought their voices to Chicago, and as Dan Rather was attacked by authorities while reporting live from the Convention floor.

I remember earlier how local and state authorities  with dogs, water hoses, and clubs attacked  unarmed civil rights protesters practicing civil disobedience.

And I clearly remember how all these demonstrators were considered left-leaning trouble makers not worthy of basic human rights.

Yet the  VietNam war protesters were right in their opposition to a war that the Secretary of Defense would later label as “terribly wrong”, further explaining that “we owe it to future generations to explain why”.

As for the work of the civil rights demonstrators, we now have a federal monument to Martin Luther King, and an African-American family in the White House, not to mention the significant civil rights legislation.

Bill O’Reilly is one year younger than myself.  We share all of these memories. He should know that positive change can come through protest and civil disobedience.  He should not be so quick to dismiss the voices and questions being raised by citizens, young or old, who are willing to take their message to the streets.

And, yes, Mr. O’Reilly, we need to “second guess” the actions of armed authorities in our cities when there is obvious reason to do so.