Trump and Political Violence
2024-07-23
Those who claim to be on the political left have often promoted violence against their critics and adversaries. They have also taken irrational, regressive positions on a number of issues. They need to take responsibility for that.
Sommaire en français Ceux qui prétendent appartenir à la gauche politique ont souvent encouragé la violence contre leurs détracteurs et leurs adversaires. Ils ont également adopté des positions irrationnelles et régressives sur un certain nombre de questions. Ils doivent en assumer la responsabilité.
Now that Donald J. Trump has “miraculously” survived an assassination attempt, he has become not just the great hero of the MAGA cult, but now its messiah. Evidently, American Christian evanglicals have set the bar for messiah extremely low. Trump has even had the supreme arrogance to state that it was “divine intervention” that made him turn his head and thus avoid taking the assassin’s bullet directly to the head, thus saving his life. His supporters hope that this “intervention” (a.k.a. stroke of good luck) will guarantee victory in the November presidential election. Unfortunately, they may be right.
We are very lucky that the assassination attempt failed. If Trump had been killed or seriously injured, the situation today would be much worse. The level of sectarian tension would have become extremely dangerous.
Imagine you are in Germany, in 1932…
Some Trump supporters are accusing Democrats of hypocrisy. Many Democrats now say they deplore political violence, but previously made comments which promoted—or at least appeared to promote—violence against Trump and his ilk, saying that he is as bad as Hitler. (Personally, I am not convinced. I think Trump is much stupider than Hitler. I am not sure whether that makes him more or less dangerous. But he has the support of some seriously wacky people, and that is definitely dangerous.)
Ok, let’s suppose Trump is as bad as Hitler. That raises a serious question which no-one has yet addressed, to my knowledge. If this were Germany in 1932, a few months before Hitler took power legally, would it be ethically justified to assassinate him? Remember, it is 1932 and most of the horrors of the Nazis are in the future. You cannot know the future, so you are unaware of:
- World War II and the huge loss of life that that war entailed.
- Nazi concentration and death camps, and the huge loss of life they caused.
- Kristallnacht, the infamous anti-Jewish pogrom in November 1938.
- The Reichstag fire which Hitler used as an excuse to suspend civil liberties and become dictator.
Could you morally justify an assassination on the basis of such information?
What you do have to go on is the hyper-chauvinist rhetoric of Hitler and his Nazi followers, their virulent anti-semitic fanaticism and the record of violence perpetrated in recent years by gangs of Nazi goons. Could you morally justify an assassination on the basis of such information?
If your answer to that question is not an immediate NO, if you are seriously considering the idea that an assassination would be justified, then you are in dangerous territory. Today, the so-called “left” are constantly accusing their critics of being fascist, Nazi or far-right. They make such accusations indiscriminately, for the slightest reason. The habit of making such accusations is very dangerous. This is one reason why the political “left” is so hated currently. Do you really think that the behaviour of the political right in the USA today can compete with that of Hitler and company?
Irrationality and Violence
I once knew a person—I will call him Justin here—who had held progressive views, but whose gradual indoctrination into post-leftist ideologies (a.k.a. “wokism”) was disturbing and very revealing of the irrationality and zealotry which currently discredits the “left.” Here are a few highlights—or rather lowlights—of his descent into fanaticism.
In 2017, James Damore was fired from Google for failing to comply with the prevailing political dogma. To explain the underrepresention of women in some professions, Damore had had the temerity to suggest the eminently reasonable hypothesis that, in addition to discrimination, the situation might also be explained in part by women’s preferences. Justin agreed completely with Google and its decision to terminate Damore’s employment forthwith.
CRT promotes the notion that racism is a one-way street: only whites can be racist, whereas non-whites never are.
At the core of the post-left’s neoracism is the ideology known as Critical Race Theory (CRT). Justin endorsed CRT uncritically, displaying a Facebook post stating that teaching CRT in schools is essentially identical to teaching the history of racism. Thus, he alleged, anyone who opposes CRT is trying to censor the history of racism! I responded in a comment asserting that no, that equivalence is not only false but in fact dishonest, because the history of racism can and should be taught in schools, but without ideological bias. CRT is an ideology which rejects the European Enlightenment; it is thus anti-European. CRT’s promotion of racism against so-called whites is only the tip of the problematic iceberg. CRT promotes the notion that racism is a one-way street: only whites can be racist, whereas non-whites never are. This means that CRT refuses to recognize the significance of prejudice between different white ethnic groups (such as antisemitism), or prejudice between different non-white groups (for example anti-black racism in the Arab-Muslim world), or prejudice of non-whites directed at whites.
Furthermore, CRT assumes that any demographic inequity must be the result of injustice and no other possible explanation is acceptable (just like Google’s position with respect to sexism in the Damore case). CRT is irrational, racialist dogma which must be rejected. It could be taught, for example, in political science courses, along with other unsubstantiated political theories, but certainly not as fact. Justin’s response to my comment on his Facebook post was to erase it immediately, evidently fearing that the faithful would cancel him if he allowed such heresy to remain visible under his post.
Justin was a big fan of the Antifa—you know, those ostensibly antifascist goons who behave like fascist goons. When one individual pointed out to Justin that the original German Antifa—the Antifaschistische Aktion—were dangerous and reactionary, just like the current version, Justin and the other faithful reacted with a mixture of horror and ridicule. I intervened to remind everyone that it was true: the Antifaschistische Aktion were, in the early 1930s, a paramilitary wing of the German Communist Party (KPD) which towed the Stalinist line which considered the Social Democratic Party (SPD, from which the communists had split in the aftermath of World War I) to be “social fascists,” even worse than the Nazis. Thus, by directing their hostility against their former allies instead of against the real fascists, the communists and their goons facilitated the growth and rise to power of the Nazis. Justin responded to this historical reminder with denial, doubling down on his support for the Antifa.
“Punch A Nazi” was just an endorsement of indiscriminate physical violence against any dissenter, a licence to beat people up.
It was around this time that the slogan “Punch A Nazi” become trendy among post-leftists. Justin repeated this catchphrase joyfully and enthusiastically. The basic idea is that it is OK to punch someone if they are apparently a Nazi. But of course we know that post-leftists have a nasty habit of accusing anyone who disagrees with them in any way of being fascist or far-right or Nazi. Thus, the slogan “Punch A Nazi” was just an endorsement of indiscriminate physical violence against any dissenter, a licence to beat people up.
At one point, Justin explained that he hates the political centre. In his mindset, leftists (i.e. himself and his ilk) are the incarnation of goodness and protectors of the persecuted. On the other hand, the political right are murderous bigots who persecute, even kill, innocent people (like minorities, I assume). But the people in the political centre are half-way there, so they only want to kill half as many people. Therefore centrists are evil. This, incredibly, was his “logic.”
Toxic Political Movements
Yes, the Trump-MAGA movement is a toxic nut cult, practically a religion, with Trump himself as a very unlikely messiah. But part of the anti-Trump side is also a toxic nut cult, dominated by neoracists and similar postmodernist ideologues. Justin’s behaviour is very typical of such ideologues. Many other examples of their irrationality could be given. In the United States, and to a great extent also in Canada, so-called left liberals are neither left nor liberal, not any more. With its highly illiberal behaviour, the post-left has discredited itself and driven many to support the political right.
With Biden having withdrawn and passed the gauntlet to his vice-president, perhaps the probability of a Trump victory will diminish. But if Trump wins, and even if he does not, post-leftists need to take a good look in the mirror and recognize all that they have done to empower the political right by betraying Enlightenment values.
Next blog: Letter to Free Inquiry about US Constitution