The violence, however, is almost entirely one sided. It isn't just one person, but and entire political ecosystem of billionaires, zealots and ideological extremists churning out well funded threats and encouraging the dissolution of democratic norms. While peaceful responses could counter such efforts, it would take massive protests and a resounding electoral thumping. We're not seeing that. In fact, we're seeing a growth in the alignment of otherwise decent people with indecent groups. People are prepared to vote for right wing parties despite the fact that their tents increasingly included white nationalists, Christian extremists, and crony billionaires. They seem less interested in policy discussions while outwardly more energized by ideas of vengeance and retribution. They've been fed such mindless propaganda for so long the common set of values required for a healthy democracy now lie in tatters. The double down deep democracy response will require a herculean effort, but worryingly, I am not seeing any evidence of it organically materializing.
Since 1776 four U.S. presidents have been assassinated and there have been attempts on several others including former U.S. President Donald Trump, who in my view is the victim of the violence he has been spouting for the last eight plus years, at rallies and the January 6, attack on the White House. What amazes me is that after the recent attempt,, and others Republican and Democratic Party Leaders alike, spout such idiotic comments as "Such activities have no place in America," when shootings, many of them mass shootings occur daily. Some of these same leaders go on to deny some shootings even happened . Many of these same leaders ignore the idiotic gun laws that lead to such shootings. Many also accept mega dollars from the NRA who oppose any restrictions on gun laws, arguing that such laws penalize law abiding and responsible gun owners who safely store their guns. Well the 20 year old son of one of these so called law abiding and responsible gun owners managed to come into possession of "the safely stored gun," wound three people, kill another and managed to get himself killed in the process. It is beyond insane and none of it bodes well for democracy in the United States or anywhere else
What worries me about this , is how people like Danielle Smith ranted on about conservatives being characterized a certain way after they perpetuate their own rhetoric ….. she is the cause of characterizing her own self . The cognitive dissonance is real
I'm going to toss in another comment here because I can't seem to at the CNO, where David posted a related article:
Thank-you, David, well-done. Save for the very weak "bulk of the problem" terms for left-right comparison. Simple numerical comparisons, of say:
Gamergate physical threats against the *male* critics;
Pandemic physical threats against public-health officials for being *too lax* about masks;
Occupy physical assaults or threats against billionaires;
...you'll find that "negligible" is the word, that nerds would say "two orders of magnitude difference": that is, the the left are the 1% of the problem, the right are 99% of the problem of assaults and physical threats.
It isn't just Anthony Fauci who needs a protective detail; so does former GOP party head, Mitt Romney, who spends $2000/day on security, to protect him from members of his OWN party.
PP might want to think about THAT. Tigers have a way of not wanting to be ridden.
Certain level of "political violence" (term that can be defined in multiple ways) has been part of society since the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Incas, Mayas, old civilizations in Asia, etc. The Great War in Europe started with a assassination, Rabin was killed to derail the Oslo Accord... so I am not sure we can point at American exceptionalism here. Is the vitriol more intense? We would need a proper document analysis to accept this hypothesis.
The one thing that seems new is the speed in which information is shared, the cacophony of voices, some real, some not, and how people can be influenced by the consumption of information on social media and messaging apps. As seen on YouTube, for example...
From the printing press to today, people can be swayed at a faster and larger scale, and it takes just one person to wreck havoc like the one we saw in Pennsylvania.
The Genie is out of the bottle, and instead of asking for it to go back, we should probably focus more on counter-measures to deal with the most toxic aspects of technology, be it regulation or a faster way to flag potentially dangerous content.
I was in the dentists office on Sept 11. I never made it to work that day, which is important since my office was on the 60 floor of World Trade Center 2. I probably would have made it out safely, but I still lost friends and colleagues.
It wasn’t all bad since the event (and a girl) eventually convinced me to move to Canada and make a life here. Best decision of my life.
This is not a site for critical discourse. There is no room here for argument. This is a site for self-righteous Canadians to slam the United States with shallow, puerile argument that wouldn't fit in a grade 11 class. I thought, through a friend, I would find open minded argument. Shame on all of you who think you are contributing to a meaningful discourse. You are venting a jealous anger based on very little actual knowledge. You really don't want to hear another side of whatever argument you're trying to make.
Ah, but where politics ends and violence starts becomes much more grey than bright-red-line, once a party is in power. And the power to inflict violence is a great temptation of power itself.
Have to mention that, I just this week, learned of "Operation Northwoods". It was this plan to stage a series of "false flag" terrorist attacks on American ships, planes, land. (American casualties would be, well, avoided, only Cubans would be sunk on the boat attacks.) The idea was to create a cause for an American invasion of Cuba - to lie America into war, just like the Pueblo, the Gulf of Tonkin, the babies-in-incubators, and Saddam's Nuke For Al-Qaeda.
It takes violence and humiliation to incite people to violence. Incitement of Americans to violence is an official American government direction. It IS who they are. Canada doesn't do that. Europeans don't do that, since France gave up her colonies, at least.
Oh, by "official", I meant that "Operation Northwoods" was approved by the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff. It only didn't happen because Kennedy came into office and killed it. Lying America into violence had official sanction and military/intelligence support for the other wars, too.
Creating a context for violence, to further political ends, IS who they are. At least on the militaristic, neo-colonial American Right. Until you can end the use of it as a political strategy for the government, you certainly won't remove it from their Republican party. Since Kennedy, there's been 60 years of Republicans inventing lies to justify violence, and the Democrats turning such projects down. No wonder the former party is openly turning to violence to take power.
Congressman Peter Meijer testified to The Atlantic that colleagues who had planned to certify the election, and vote for impeachment, came up to him on the House floor later on January 6, telling him that their families were being threatened in their Twitter messages, and they had to vote against certification, against impeachment, for fear of their families.
While there is a sensible argument here, it is burdened by your language.
The phrase 'politics should not be violent' misrepresents your argument because you're either limiting what counts as politics or what counts as violence.
So long as politics is about power/governance, it is inherently violent. Whether you wish to change society or keep it the same, violence is part of wielding power.
This is why so many people on the left have been so annoyed by the ubiquitous repudiations of "political violence" in the last few days. Stopping people from accessing food or shelter they cannot afford is violent. Enforcing borders is violent. Arresting and incarcerating people is violent. Enforcing good laws, such as those which combat assassinations, are violent.
Obviously I agree that we should not compete with our political opponents through physical attacks, but this is an incredibly limited view of what constitutes politics.
It's easy (and not wrong) to say attempting to assassinate politicians is violence and wrong while passionate disagreement is critical but I think the challenge comes in delineating the murky middle. When does a protest cross the line to become a riot, for example.
But even beyond recognizing and debating the boundaries, we also need to be aware (and you allude to this) that there's a very real push to move those boundaries to silence critics of the state, even as state violence (domestically and abroad) is largely ignored.
These are your words: "This moment calls for a non-violent but conflictual politics balanced with democratic deliberation, driven by class-based and other social movements that mix electoral and street politics. We are struggling against the rise of authoritarianism, right wing extremism, crumbling institutions, the existential threat of climate change, an inadequate welfare state, and a free market that exploits workers and fails to meet our collective needs."
Those are not the words of one who wants to sort out differences by peaceful means. When you use words such as "....class-based...authoritarianism...right wing extremism [as opposed to left wing extremism of which there is plenty]...inadequate welfare state...free market that exploits workers..." you are essentially calling for violent revolution. Only you don't chose to call it such. You want to hide behind a patina of self-righteous "indignation" when indeed you know damn well, that what you espouse will never be achieved peacefully. Your theories are shallow and incorrect. You pick and chose, and almost inevitably the victim is the United States. You have no nuance. it is not that I disagree with you; it is that you are in another universe of belief that defies opposition. Stop trying to dress yourself and your theories up in polite ideals.
try to stop thinking like a white, entitled, male. politicians have been targeting marginalized and racialized communities for a very long time (just not you). if their whipped up tribe commits violence they don't care. and it's not all on the right. look at the liberals historical treatment of 1st Nations or more recently ignoring a genocide to hold onto a couple of ridings. its fear that holds politicians in check. if they don't want to have to live in fear, then they should stop intentionally making others live in fear
The violence, however, is almost entirely one sided. It isn't just one person, but and entire political ecosystem of billionaires, zealots and ideological extremists churning out well funded threats and encouraging the dissolution of democratic norms. While peaceful responses could counter such efforts, it would take massive protests and a resounding electoral thumping. We're not seeing that. In fact, we're seeing a growth in the alignment of otherwise decent people with indecent groups. People are prepared to vote for right wing parties despite the fact that their tents increasingly included white nationalists, Christian extremists, and crony billionaires. They seem less interested in policy discussions while outwardly more energized by ideas of vengeance and retribution. They've been fed such mindless propaganda for so long the common set of values required for a healthy democracy now lie in tatters. The double down deep democracy response will require a herculean effort, but worryingly, I am not seeing any evidence of it organically materializing.
Since 1776 four U.S. presidents have been assassinated and there have been attempts on several others including former U.S. President Donald Trump, who in my view is the victim of the violence he has been spouting for the last eight plus years, at rallies and the January 6, attack on the White House. What amazes me is that after the recent attempt,, and others Republican and Democratic Party Leaders alike, spout such idiotic comments as "Such activities have no place in America," when shootings, many of them mass shootings occur daily. Some of these same leaders go on to deny some shootings even happened . Many of these same leaders ignore the idiotic gun laws that lead to such shootings. Many also accept mega dollars from the NRA who oppose any restrictions on gun laws, arguing that such laws penalize law abiding and responsible gun owners who safely store their guns. Well the 20 year old son of one of these so called law abiding and responsible gun owners managed to come into possession of "the safely stored gun," wound three people, kill another and managed to get himself killed in the process. It is beyond insane and none of it bodes well for democracy in the United States or anywhere else
What worries me about this , is how people like Danielle Smith ranted on about conservatives being characterized a certain way after they perpetuate their own rhetoric ….. she is the cause of characterizing her own self . The cognitive dissonance is real
Thank you David, I always look forward to your writings for comfort when I’m feeling in despair about our country’s politics
I'm going to toss in another comment here because I can't seem to at the CNO, where David posted a related article:
Thank-you, David, well-done. Save for the very weak "bulk of the problem" terms for left-right comparison. Simple numerical comparisons, of say:
Gamergate physical threats against the *male* critics;
Pandemic physical threats against public-health officials for being *too lax* about masks;
Occupy physical assaults or threats against billionaires;
...you'll find that "negligible" is the word, that nerds would say "two orders of magnitude difference": that is, the the left are the 1% of the problem, the right are 99% of the problem of assaults and physical threats.
It isn't just Anthony Fauci who needs a protective detail; so does former GOP party head, Mitt Romney, who spends $2000/day on security, to protect him from members of his OWN party.
PP might want to think about THAT. Tigers have a way of not wanting to be ridden.
Certain level of "political violence" (term that can be defined in multiple ways) has been part of society since the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Incas, Mayas, old civilizations in Asia, etc. The Great War in Europe started with a assassination, Rabin was killed to derail the Oslo Accord... so I am not sure we can point at American exceptionalism here. Is the vitriol more intense? We would need a proper document analysis to accept this hypothesis.
The one thing that seems new is the speed in which information is shared, the cacophony of voices, some real, some not, and how people can be influenced by the consumption of information on social media and messaging apps. As seen on YouTube, for example...
From the printing press to today, people can be swayed at a faster and larger scale, and it takes just one person to wreck havoc like the one we saw in Pennsylvania.
The Genie is out of the bottle, and instead of asking for it to go back, we should probably focus more on counter-measures to deal with the most toxic aspects of technology, be it regulation or a faster way to flag potentially dangerous content.
Respectfully,
JS
Somewhat off topic, but:
I was in the dentists office on Sept 11. I never made it to work that day, which is important since my office was on the 60 floor of World Trade Center 2. I probably would have made it out safely, but I still lost friends and colleagues.
It wasn’t all bad since the event (and a girl) eventually convinced me to move to Canada and make a life here. Best decision of my life.
This is not a site for critical discourse. There is no room here for argument. This is a site for self-righteous Canadians to slam the United States with shallow, puerile argument that wouldn't fit in a grade 11 class. I thought, through a friend, I would find open minded argument. Shame on all of you who think you are contributing to a meaningful discourse. You are venting a jealous anger based on very little actual knowledge. You really don't want to hear another side of whatever argument you're trying to make.
Ah, but where politics ends and violence starts becomes much more grey than bright-red-line, once a party is in power. And the power to inflict violence is a great temptation of power itself.
Have to mention that, I just this week, learned of "Operation Northwoods". It was this plan to stage a series of "false flag" terrorist attacks on American ships, planes, land. (American casualties would be, well, avoided, only Cubans would be sunk on the boat attacks.) The idea was to create a cause for an American invasion of Cuba - to lie America into war, just like the Pueblo, the Gulf of Tonkin, the babies-in-incubators, and Saddam's Nuke For Al-Qaeda.
It takes violence and humiliation to incite people to violence. Incitement of Americans to violence is an official American government direction. It IS who they are. Canada doesn't do that. Europeans don't do that, since France gave up her colonies, at least.
Oh, by "official", I meant that "Operation Northwoods" was approved by the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff. It only didn't happen because Kennedy came into office and killed it. Lying America into violence had official sanction and military/intelligence support for the other wars, too.
Creating a context for violence, to further political ends, IS who they are. At least on the militaristic, neo-colonial American Right. Until you can end the use of it as a political strategy for the government, you certainly won't remove it from their Republican party. Since Kennedy, there's been 60 years of Republicans inventing lies to justify violence, and the Democrats turning such projects down. No wonder the former party is openly turning to violence to take power.
Congressman Peter Meijer testified to The Atlantic that colleagues who had planned to certify the election, and vote for impeachment, came up to him on the House floor later on January 6, telling him that their families were being threatened in their Twitter messages, and they had to vote against certification, against impeachment, for fear of their families.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/peter-meijer-freshman-republican-impeach/620844/
That's violence directly affecting legislation right there. But it really is very one-sided.
While there is a sensible argument here, it is burdened by your language.
The phrase 'politics should not be violent' misrepresents your argument because you're either limiting what counts as politics or what counts as violence.
So long as politics is about power/governance, it is inherently violent. Whether you wish to change society or keep it the same, violence is part of wielding power.
This is why so many people on the left have been so annoyed by the ubiquitous repudiations of "political violence" in the last few days. Stopping people from accessing food or shelter they cannot afford is violent. Enforcing borders is violent. Arresting and incarcerating people is violent. Enforcing good laws, such as those which combat assassinations, are violent.
Obviously I agree that we should not compete with our political opponents through physical attacks, but this is an incredibly limited view of what constitutes politics.
It's easy (and not wrong) to say attempting to assassinate politicians is violence and wrong while passionate disagreement is critical but I think the challenge comes in delineating the murky middle. When does a protest cross the line to become a riot, for example.
But even beyond recognizing and debating the boundaries, we also need to be aware (and you allude to this) that there's a very real push to move those boundaries to silence critics of the state, even as state violence (domestically and abroad) is largely ignored.
These are your words: "This moment calls for a non-violent but conflictual politics balanced with democratic deliberation, driven by class-based and other social movements that mix electoral and street politics. We are struggling against the rise of authoritarianism, right wing extremism, crumbling institutions, the existential threat of climate change, an inadequate welfare state, and a free market that exploits workers and fails to meet our collective needs."
Those are not the words of one who wants to sort out differences by peaceful means. When you use words such as "....class-based...authoritarianism...right wing extremism [as opposed to left wing extremism of which there is plenty]...inadequate welfare state...free market that exploits workers..." you are essentially calling for violent revolution. Only you don't chose to call it such. You want to hide behind a patina of self-righteous "indignation" when indeed you know damn well, that what you espouse will never be achieved peacefully. Your theories are shallow and incorrect. You pick and chose, and almost inevitably the victim is the United States. You have no nuance. it is not that I disagree with you; it is that you are in another universe of belief that defies opposition. Stop trying to dress yourself and your theories up in polite ideals.
John R.
try to stop thinking like a white, entitled, male. politicians have been targeting marginalized and racialized communities for a very long time (just not you). if their whipped up tribe commits violence they don't care. and it's not all on the right. look at the liberals historical treatment of 1st Nations or more recently ignoring a genocide to hold onto a couple of ridings. its fear that holds politicians in check. if they don't want to have to live in fear, then they should stop intentionally making others live in fear