Social norms are funny things, hardly set in stone. There was a time when vulgarity was unheard in our films; now its ubiquitous in them — and the wider society. In the 1950s, boys might take rifles on NYC’s subways because they had shooting clubs at their government schools. Now these institutions may have cops and metal detectors and a gun is cause for a lockdown. Of course, violence is also more prevalent in the wider society, political violence included. A good example is the recent assassination of a Minnesota politician and her husband and the wounding of another officeholder and his wife by 57-year-old Vance Boelter. And each of “both (political) sides” wants to claim that Boelter is a member of the other, too. Yet something appears for certain.
Only one side has with a wink and a nod, and sometimes more, been consistently encouraging violence.
And that side, says one observer, is the Democrats.
In fact, avers commentator James Zumwalt, the
left, which has encouraged direct, aggressive, and unlawful confrontation, is entirely to blame for incidences like this [the Minnesota shootings] — the violence they originally intended for Republicans and conservatives is now eating up their own ranks.
Prejudice or Perspicacity?
Zumwalt continued:
The danger of promoting confrontation or such incitement is that … there are those members of society teetering on the edge of reason who are easily goaded into acting outrageously.
… One such teeterer prompted into acting contrary to reason was Luigi Mangione, when he allegedly murdered Brian Thompson — the CEO of UnitedHealthcare — in downtown Manhattan. Police believe Mangione acted on the perceptions he had been fed that the health insurance company was “parasitic” and its executives motivated by pure “corporate greed.” But what is just as worrisome as Mangione’s actions is [sic] those of society’s members who have rallied to support this killer, contributing handsomely to his defense fund.
Of course, in response, some will say, “Both sides do it.” Yet others will claim violence is a Republican/conservative domain. In reality, though, it’s not even close.
The Numbers
The year 2020, including its misnamed “Summer of Love,” saw 600-plus violent left-wing, BLM/Antifa riots. This resulted in looting, arson, billions in property damage, and between 19 and 36 people killed. We’ve also seen the more recent “No Kings” violence. Against this, leftists have for years hung their hat on one event: January 6. (Take one event, talk about it 600 times as much, and it adds up to 600 events. That’s the thinking.) And now, of course, Boelter may be in the “rightist” column. Yet where does this leave us?
Six-hundred-plus to two.
Of course, there are more violent incidents on both sides (though mainly on one) that could be included. And this just widens the gap further.
So I’ll ask what I do regarding assertions of GOP “radicalism,” after citing the Democrats’ claim that boys can become girls just by willing it (“trans” agenda). What is the Republican analogue to the behavior in question?
Where, regarding the current issue, are the hundreds of “right-wing” riots?
Incitement to Violence
Of course, riots are nothing new; there were, for instance, draft riots in New York City in 1863. What may be unprecedented, in modern American times at least, are the demagogic fighting words issuing from some Democrats’ mouths. Zumwalt cites as an example Representative Maxine Waters’ (D-Calif.) 2018 rabble-rousing, and that’s a good place to start.
On June 23 of that year, Waters screeched, in a provocative tone, referencing Trump administration officials (video below):
If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them! And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere!
The earlier question applies here, too: What is the Republican analogue to the above?
While the leftists ponder that, let’s consider another example. Below is Representative Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) calling for “unrest in the streets” in 2020:
Again, the Republican analogue?
Then there was Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) lobbying for abortion on the Supreme Court steps in 2020. Addressing reputedly pro-life justices, he bellowed:
I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price!
Note here that no lawful price can be extracted, as justices can’t be voted from office. And impeachment is a practical impossibility. So what “price” was Schumer alluding to (video below)?
Finally, we have Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) responding in 2020 to a question about the matter of mobs tearing down statues. “People will do what they do,” said she (video below), sloughing off the criminality.
Oddly, “People will do…” wasn’t Nan’s attitude when her husband was attacked by a hammer-wielding home invader two years later.
And, once more, the GOP analogue?
A Monster Released May Consume Its Creator
Add to this that numerous political, media, and educational figures said in 2020 that we should “burn” down the system rather than let a “conservative” be put on the Supreme Court, and the picture is clear. That is, yes, the “Both sides do it” argument has validity, as the below meme illustrates.
And one side can, too, affect both sides. To analogize it, imagine a man has six children, three more inclined to violence and three more peaceable. Now imagine he incites the former to violence directed at the others and ensures the behavior will be consequence-free. Should we be surprised when, in this toxic-parent-born environment, the nicer kids occasionally respond with violence themselves?
The Left has, as during its French Revolution birth, created a new “normal” in which speech and silence “can be violence” — and in which violence can be used like speech. They should note, however, what befell famed French Revolution author Maximilien Robespierre.
His own revolution consumed him, as former allies put him under the guillotine, the execution method he himself had championed.