LEFT’S BROWN SHIRTS: Americans unimpressed with political violence against Trump supporters

The Violence Double Standard

I think my record is fairly clear that I am not Donald Trump’s most committed supporter. Indeed, compared with me, Paul Ryan looks positively euphoric in his hostage-video endorsement of Trump. (How funny would it have been if the AP kept the camera rolling as Ryan took off his mic and he yelled to an aide “Can someone call Corey Lewandowski and tell him he can release my family now!?”)

And yet, it’s an absolute no-brainer for me that these goons, thugs, and morons in California must be condemned for their violent tactics yesterday.

I don’t believe that all violence is equal. I subscribe to the William F. Buckley line on such moral equivalence. As Bill put it, if one man pushes old ladies in front of buses and another pushes old ladies out of the way of oncoming buses, you cannot describe them both as the sorts of men who “push old ladies around.” Well, actually you could describe them that way, but what you gained in technical accuracy would be offset in moral vapidity.

But in a democracy the rules are different. In political contests there are no such things as fighting words. The state has a monopoly on force, and when activists violate that monopoly, the state has a right to stop it, gently if possible, forcibly if necessary.

When Trump encouraged violence at his rallies — and he did — the media rightly condemned him for it. They went further than that, actually. They openly fretted about the health of our political system and the threat Trump posed to it. Personally, I think the rhetoric of those concerns was at times overblown, but the underlying concerns were entirely valid. I think Trump is an irresponsible demagogue and his supporters who use violence are goons.

[GSL Editor:  Remember, Trump haters love to play up trivial instances as something significant, when in the grand scheme of things, mole-hills never become mountains despite the best efforts of some.  Instead, mole hills get stepped upon and squashed as insignificant.]

But the social-justice-warrior shock troops attacking Trump’s supporters are no better.

[GSL Editor:  Goldberg is calling the physical attacks by rabid mobs burning the American flag, carrying the Mexican flag, hurling fists, bottles and all manner of objects at police and Trump supporters with Trump calling for troublemakers to be ejected into the cold without their coats?  Wow.  That’s about as morally and intellectually vapid as Gov. Nikki Haley comparing Trump’s rhetoric with the racist spree killer who shall remain unnamed.]

And yet, the response from the same media figures has been, shall we say, more muted. An editor at Vox even seems to think rioting is a legitimate weapon in political discourse, when aimed at the right target.

(This is the same outlet that treated Trump’s encouragement of violence quite differently, indeed as a “threat to democracy itself.”)

…My only disagreement here is that I don’t think this started in the ’60s or ended in the ’80s. I think it’s safe to say that few left-wing labor historians — by which I mean nearly all labor historians — treat the various labor riots a century ago as outrageous violations of the rule of law. The 1992 LA riots — widely described as a “rebellion” by riot ideologists — were routinely cited as a justification for vast new spending on HUD and the expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act, which contributed to the financial crisis of 2008.

Of course, left-wing rioting isn’t simply a cynical political tactic for the Left, it’s also a modern expression of political romanticism. (emphasis added)  Remember when the mayor of Baltimore matter-of-factly said, “We also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.”

Nor is it just rioting — Political violence has always been graded on a curve. I don’t want to eat out of Jay Nordlinger’s food bowl, but if the Left considered all violence, including cold-blooded murder, as categorically and unequivocally evil, Che Guevara onesies would not exist, O.J. Simpson would have been thrown in jail 20 years ago, and Hillary Clinton would never have been so sympathetic to the Black Panthers.

Shed a Tear for the Tea Parties

It’s no exaggeration to say that this double standard amounts to a profound moral rot in our politics. I don’t need to cite chapter and verse about how the profoundly peaceful and law-abiding Tea Party movement was treated as a proto-fascist army of vigilantes while the Occupy movement was seen as a heartwarming expression of authentic people power. Never mind that violence was far more endemic to the Occupy movement. Left-wing youth, particularly minority youth, who threaten and intimidate people and destroy property, are seen as expressing their righteous passion. Right-wing youth who do likewise are terrifying harbingers of fascism and authoritarianism.  (emphasis added)

My own view is that anyone who engages in such tactics should be condemned. And, if you actually read Liberal Fascism, you’d know that I think the ideologies driving such behavior on both the left and the right are more similar than different.

And that is what is so frightening about where we may be heading. And it is why I am so heartbroken by the failure of the Tea Parties.

As Glenn Reynolds noted last March, the liberals and moderates wetting themselves over Trump blew it when they allowed the Tea Parties to be smeared and demonized as racist. (emphasis added)  They were cheerful, patriotic, law-abiding, and principled. Their agenda, for the most part (every movement has knuckleheads) upheld the very best ideals of this country: constitutionalism, limited government, and, in terms of policy, living within our means without overtaxing the most productive economy in human history. Sure, there were opportunists and rabble rousers at some rallies, but given fair treatment and responsible leadership, the Tea Party was the ideal vessel for a populism-infused movement to rein in government responsibly.

Responding to David Brooks’s column about the Trump movement, Reynolds wrote:

When politeness and orderliness are met with contempt and betrayal, do not be surprised if the response is something less polite, and less orderly. (emphasis added)  Brooks closes his Trump column with Psalm 73, but a more appropriate verse is Hosea 8:7 ‘For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.’ Trump’s ascendance is a symptom of a colossal failure among America’s political leaders, of which Brooks’ mean-spirited insularity is only a tiny part. God help us all.

Amen.

So now the de facto leader of the Republican party is a “counter-puncher,” and his fans love him for it (he’s also just a punch-firster — and a low-blow puncher at that — and if you can’t see that, it’s probably because you’re enthralled in resentment or his cult of personality).

Through innuendo, insinuation, and sometimes outright incitement Trump is fighting fire with fire.

…

The Center Crumbles

The Tea Parties were not a white identity-politics movement. But liberal elites treated it as such and now we’ve got the beginnings of one. And while I’d be happy to engage in a debate about who started it, I don’t think it’s necessary because it’s so frickin’ obvious. Moreover, as any parent knows, identifying who started unacceptable behavior is not an exercise in excusing unacceptable behavior (no matter how much Trump thinks “He started it!” is a justification for any calumny, including suggesting that Ted Cruz’s father was in on the Kennedy assassination). If two brothers are throwing rocks at each other, you might punish Timmy more for starting it, but you wouldn’t tell Tommy it’s okay to have rock fights.

And this points to why the anti-Trump protesters are such monumental morons. Every time they live down to our expectations, they stoke the coal in the Trump Train’s furnace. (emphasis added)   The ultimate result of the 1968 Democratic convention riots was to get Richard Nixon elected. And as sure as shinola you can expect the Left to start talking about how such violence is justified. Indeed, they already have.