It Has NO Place.

Filed in National by on June 1, 2009

Most conservatives do not in any way support violent protest, murder, and terrorism to achieve their political goals. That is true no matter if we are talking about abortion, gay marriage, taxes, or opposition to President Obama or liberalism in general.

Most liberals do not in any way support violent protest, murder, and terrorism to achieve their political goals. That is true no matter if we are talking about the Iraq War, the environment, civil rights, worker’s rights, or opposition to former President Bush or conservatism in general.

A conservative may think abortion is murder, and yet be horrified by the murder of Dr. Tiller.

A liberal may think the Iraq War is immoral, and yet be horrified by the murder of solider William Long in Little Rock, Arkansas (I will assume that the killing was politically motivated, although we don’t know that yet. I do this out of fairness, since we all here at DL assumed the murder of Dr. Tiller was politically motivated before that fact was confirmed).

Yet there are individuals, groups of individuals, and whole organizations out there, on both the left and right, that do resort to political violence. They are called extremists. They are not representative of mainstream conservatism or mainstream liberalism. They are not representative of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party.

Unless….

They celebrate it. Or show sympathy to it. Or if they instigate it. Or provoke it.

If political violence and the perpetrators of it are not condemned, shunned and shamed, then they are accepted, condoned and encouraged, whether by our silence or our consent.

That is what we here at DL have been arguing about during this months long debate over extremists.

Steve Newton thinks I am playing a game.

The game that DD and company love to play is this: conflate all political rhetoric with which they disagree with that of truly dangerous, nutcase, violent extremist groups, and then take any–any–violence committed by someone with superficially similar views and use that to vindicate your own particular form of hate speech.

Wrong. I am not playing a game. Like I said above, a person can think abortion is murder, even though I disagree with it. A person can think an economic stimulus package is tyranny, even though I think that person killed one too many brain cells in college, or at least missed one too many History classes.

The only time we connect our political opponents to the truly dangerous, nutcase, violent extremists is when they make the connection themselves, whether by instigating or provoking violence, or by celebrating or failing to condemn it when it happens. That is when I conflate, Steve. And that is not a game, it is a tragedy. For one would think in the 21st century, after the successful examples of the nonviolent protests throughout the 20th century, that political violence would not be celebrated or sympathized with by any American. Yet, on many conservative blogs yesterday, the death of Dr. Tiller was cheered. Several anti-abortion leaders explicitly or impliedly stated that Dr. Tiller deserved what he got.

A colleague of mine, Mike Lux, has written about the history of violence in politics, and yes, we progressives are to blame too.

There is no question that progressive-minded folks have also engaged in political violence. […] John Brown in the 1850s believed and fought for a violent slave rebellion, and occasionally leftist leaders in the 1960s went over the line and committed acts of violence. And anarchists assassinated William McKinley in 1901. [DD notes that environmental groups have also engaged in political violence over the last 20 years].

Having said all of that, though, it is also undeniably true that there is a dangerous and virulent streak of violence and fascism in American conservatism, now and throughout our country’s history.

Conservatives in the South who vehemently and violently defended and fought for slavery and Jim Crow are the most obvious example: From the vicious caning of political opponents on the floor of the Senate, to the fighting of the bloody Civil War, to the gunning down of hundreds of freed slaves in the reconstruction era, to the lynching of thousands of African-Americans in the 90 years after the Civil War, to all of the horrible violence of the civil rights struggles in the 1950s and 60s, the story of race relations in the South has been long and incredibly bloody. The North wasn’t exactly pure on race issues either, from the mass murder of blacks in Tulsa in 1921 to the rock throwing mobs of Chicago greeting Martin Luther King.

Racial violence hasn’t been the only from of political violence by those opposed to progressive change in this country either. Labor leaders have been assassinated; women suffragists and other progressive reformers have been tarred and feathered, and violently harassed. Tim McVeigh, the perpetrator of the country’s biggest single act of domestic terrorism was a far right-wing, militia activist. Sadly, the Tiller killing is only the latest in a long string of anti-abortion activists bombing clinics and murdering people.

Even more serious, though, is the kind of domestic political violence we have seen by certain politicians. […]
Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Pat Buchanan, George H.W. Bush, G. Gordon Liddy, and many other modern day conservatives happily and proudly worked for [the lawless Nixon administration]. It is no wonder that we see them today so blithely defending the violation of the Geneva Convention and our own Bill of Rights. These are political leaders who have no qualms about torturing people, either, which is perhaps the ultimate example of political violence.

Just as political conservatives of an earlier generation had no problems aligning themselves with segregationists of the South while mobs were beating freedom riders almost to death, Bill Connor was sicking German Shepherds on children, and terrorists were firebombing churches with little girls inside them, there is a virulent strain of political conservatism today that is not troubled by political violence. Let us hope that progressives win the day over this kind of conservatism. If we don’t, I think it is safe to say we should fear for our country.

It is my hope too, and thus I will conflate as often as possible when warranted, when I think over the top political rhetoric has provoked or instigated violence, or when conservatives celebrate the results of extremist violence, or at the very least are silent or slow to condemn it. Because political violence has NO FUCKING PLACE in America. It is just that simple. No one, whether they are liberal or conservative, has any right to resort to violence to achieve their goals. NO ONE. So if I have to shame conservatives with their own words of instigation or encouragement, then so be it. And if that is to be considered act of unwarranted labeling to the likes of Steve Newton, so be it. And to be fair, my friends on the right are free to confront me and others here at DL with examples of left wing political violence. Because when I say political violence has no place in America, I really do mean it.

And it has already happened. You all remember my “Round Them Up and Shoot Them” remarks, right? Of course you do. It is the first response from the right whenever I make a post like this. Well, what did I do when confronted with my wrong and insane remark? Whether it was just hyperbole or not, it could rightly be interpreted as a call for political violence. So what did I do? Did I justify it? Or did I apologize for it, repeatedly?

Maybe there really is no hope for us after all. Maybe we humans are just a violent species, whose nature it is to destroy ourselves. And as a result, political violence, like all violence, will be with us so long as there is an us. And maybe we all should just resort to our baser instincts and have at each other in every violent way imaginable.

Or maybe we can find within ourselves a better angel.

About the Author ()

Comments (22)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Thank you, Del Dem. Great post.

    I agree, violence is wrong, even if the goal it’s supposedly supporting is one that I am sympathetic to. Politics is fought at the ballot box and in the court of public opinion. I think people should have a wide latitude in the ways they express their opinion, but violence should not be tolerated.

    People who are celebrating the death of Dr. Tiller need to take a long, hard look at themselves.

  2. pandora says:

    I feel the same, DD, and I, too, will keep pointing out threatening speech. The story of the two recruiters is heart-breaking. I’ve never understood violence or the mindset behind it. I’ve never celebrated anyone’s death… which might explain why I’m so sensitive to violent rhetoric.

  3. It started out a fine post, but you lost it half way through when you couldn’t help yourself. No political rhetoric had anything to do with this guy. It was the “lawless” government that this guy hated. He hated the government and believed it was so completely corrupt and illegitimate that he would have nothing to do with its laws.

    People like that don’t listen to Rove and Limbaugh. They are just government corporate toadies who are there to provide false opposition to the conspiracy which is dominating our country. This guy rejected the pro-life movement because it was non violent and joined a radical movement which rejected all 14th Amendment laws. That is what they believe.

    Playing politics and acting otherwise is silly.

    Acting as if Bush and Cheney is on a par with this guy is repugnant. No wonder Steve says that you are playing games.

  4. Delaware Dem says:

    The problem David is that this is not just about one guy. If that domestic terrorist was the first pro-lifer who ever acted violently, you would have a point.

    Dr. Tiller’s own life story proves that to be false. He was shot before, and his clinic vandalized and bombed, by other pro-lifers who resorted to violence.

    The point of this post, David, is that all you have to do, as a strong pro-lifer yourself, is just condemn the guy. Condemn the violence. That’s all. Say he in no way reflects your goals or opinions.

    Instead you go out of your way to distance the murderer from the pro-life movement, pretending that political rhetoric had nothing to do with this. That is obviously false. On its face. This was a politically motivated killing, David.

    And all you have to do is condemn it, rather than invent some distance or facts.

  5. FSP says:

    Profound, necessary and timely post. I respect the hell out of you right now.

  6. delacrat says:

    Most conservatives do not in any way support violent protest, murder, and terrorism to achieve their political goals.

    Actually, most conservatives do support violence, murder and terror. Otherwise, the US would never have attacked Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, while conservatives controlled all 3 branches of the federal government.

  7. Delaware Dem says:

    Wow. I am troubled by the fact that FSP now respects me. LOL.

  8. RSmitty says:

    DD – dude, you and I have been down this street before and you know where I stand on it. That said, here is my expected reply to you:

    Or did I apologize for it, repeatedly?
    Yes, considering I led that initial response, you have done so repeatedly! So much so, my wife has asked that you stop with the “Thinking of You” cards I get every-other-day. She’s a little skeeved out by it all…so much so, she has asked me to go find a woman to send those cards to me instead. Maybe that could be a “Donviti Tip” post someday. 😛

  9. Delaware Dem says:

    So, I should cancel that skywriting plane that would circle your house and write “Me so sorry?”

    😉

  10. pandora says:

    I’m with Smitty, DD. You’ve apologized – repeatedly! Anyone who doesn’t accept your (many) apologies is a small person with nothing of any substance to say.

  11. RSmitty says:

    On a more somber note…

    Maybe there really is no hope for us after all. Maybe we humans are just a violent species, whose nature it is to destroy ourselves

    I think we are very violent by nature. We’re pack-instinctive and become very protective of that pack. In today’s world, that pack can be represented by common ideology, social groups, etc. For us, in this blogging circle, we lash out with text and I am thankful that none of us has been even the slightest bit stupid enough to go beyond. However, look at us, look how we quickly circle around our common-ideology-blogging-folk. It’s kind of sick, actually. Most of us are in this weird competitive state to ensure the blogging “opposition” is so disgraced that they hopefully have no recovery to regain reputation. Why? WTF? It cuts many ways, too, so I don’t claim anyone is immune from guilt or from being the target.

    Back to humanity in general, look at history of man. All we do is compete and fall into violence. Our intelligence is the hope to overcome innate desires of supremacy, yet we’ve instead used that brain to plot and contrive how to come out ahead…of the opposition. It’s rather pathetic that as a society, over the so many years on this planet, that in this day, we still have no clue on how to work true, productive compromise. How the eff is it possible, that in 2-thousand-and-freaking-9, that we still can not find any solution to renewables? Really! It’s because there is no spirit of advancing the race, but rather winning the race at any price and we all will suffer for it in the end.

    DD – we are, by nature, violent beings, in one sense of the word or another.

  12. I don’t have to condemn a lawless murderer because I have always been against murder.

    Nevertheless, if you need context that you don’t have. I will do so out of respect for you and Pandora.

    Political violence whether on the left or right is completely unjustifiable in our system of government and I would condemn most of the world. We have a government of laws and the ability to change laws by respecting others not violating their most fundamental rights. Our government is not killing us in the streets for protesting. We are not an oppressed people down to our very last options before the gas chambers or under armed oppression.

    We have the right and responsibility to engage our fellow citizens and make our case. We have an obligation to accept the verdict of our fellow citizens even as we pursue changing that very verdict. Bullying, disrespecting, and certainly depriving people of their basic rights is appalling. Stopping others from speaking, publishing, assembling, and funding their message is to be rejected.

    Murder is of course so far out the picture that I hardly need to address it. It is a terrible act of lawlessness which if tolerated would undermine any hope we have for civilization. Accepting it regardless of the cause, would lead to anarchy and many innocent deaths including the death of society itself.

    I am in complete agreement with your first half before you started quoting the other post. It was high minded and correct. Then we started veering. I think I will just go with FSP and just judge you by that wonderful prose and forget the other.

  13. pandora says:

    Thanks, David.

  14. Delaware Dem says:

    Unfortunately, we do have to address it, David. Whether it is a soldier in Little Rock, a doctor in Kansas, three police officers in Pittsburgh, 168 government employees in Oklahoma City, liberal churchgoers in Kentucky, etc., etc., etc., political murder exists.

    I would love to join you in a world where it goes beyond saying that political violence is abhorrent to everyone and thus does not need to be addressed.

    But we do not live in that world. Yet.

  15. Von Cracker says:

    “But we do not live in that world. Yet.”

    And we never will.

    …unless we’re attacked by aliens from another solar system 😀

    Great post, DD.

  16. It does, but it is a very small part of the picture of violence and vigorously prosecuted. I do not see it mainstreamed at all. That is why, I don’t demand that anti-war folks condemn the killing of the recruiter or civil libertarians condemn the deaths of police officers unless they endorsed that behavior.

    I support its prosecution. It has to stamped out.

    I think the greater danger is political intolerance where people are trying to shut down the other side’s speech. If left unchallenged, it could lead to wide spread violence as a tool of political power. That is why I spend more of my energy condemning it.

    I am glad to see that we all agree on this (except for delacrat). I do like that you took the obvious as a starting point and did not try to conflate this into some cheap political straw dog. I am not even bothering with that silliness. It seems to be something unseemly about using some one’s death to play cheap games. I am glad that you have the class not to do so.

  17. I don’t like to do yard work so I have other people do the job for me.

  18. MJ says:

    Nemski – thanks for the link. Seems this “army” also has the gay & lesbian community in its gunsights (they have a separate “homo news” page). And this group isn’t on any watchlist because?????????????

  19. jason330 says:

    I don’t really agree with the premise. The modern Republican party is a safe haven for violent wackos. Just read the SCCOR website and you can feel the simmering violent rage promising to bubble over. When it does I’m sure all of the usual commenters will say, “You can’t judge a movement on the acts of one unbalanced person.” I happen to remember back to the Republican National Convention in St Paul. The whole organization is unbalanced.

    As we’ve seen time and again this week, the Republican condemnation of domestic terror is a sham which condemns the victim for his sins more than the killer for his crimes.

    Steve Newton is hardly a neutral observer of political nature. On every question (other than gay marriage) he comes down on the side of the party of violent wackos. So he can piss up a rope as far as I’m concerned.

  20. Tyler Nixon says:

    Steve Newton knows of the what he speaks, more insightfully and incisively than just about anyone I know.

    J – you’re just completely pissing in the wind to assert Steve “comes down on the side of the party of violent wackos”, in any sense, ever.

    Good God, he has written more posts just against the war and violence overseas…continuing…no, escalating as we see it under President Obama….than everyone on your blog combined…at least since responsibility shifted to the new president.

    If all has to be cheapened and reduced to “coming down on a side”, Steve Newton’s has never been the one you describe, much as less as absolutist as your own sentiments seem.

    Your whole statement is ridiculously packed with pre-determined ideological purity and flows from what sounds like very personal animus.

    It makes me seriously question if you, in fact, ever actually bother to read anything Steve has written or writes.

    Your comments are unfortunate. Seriously.

  21. Joanne Christian says:

    Dear Delaware Gem,

    I know you did not anguish over this post, but you have anguished over post perception reception in the past. It is done.
    The clarity of thought, and identification of real issues is what drives this post, void of incindiery tags, and cheap accusations.
    Wrong was wrong. Your disciplined, civil discourse on the topic goes a long way in validating arguments in the future. But along those lines, I don’t doubt the time you put in to the above, did cause anguish. You have been real busy of late, and to sit and priortize this piece, and get it to the humane context of communication in this political blog, exacted all that is good about you, and what you really want your social/political voice to be. Yes?
    It was fun casting off quick comebacks, and outlandish scenarios. But it debases humanity, and most importantly it debased your humanity–and then that snowball rolled–and you were villified. Yes? And that was devastating–because you are not a villian–but a human, who made a mistake. It’s not PC, it’s not God’s Law, it’s not just desserts. So when everyone else drags down the human race in all its’ primitive instincts–you’re a reason why we are not like the animals, you have a conscience. And it better be clear by now. Because if me and Smitty have gotten over it, who else matters? Go with God, or Go Forth and Sin no more, or just Go–because you are A-OK, and have been for a while ( I was gonna say all right, but didn’t want to cause a seizure)….Get back to me if I missed something, you big Food Banker you……..JC