7mo ago

The Only Kind of “Political Violence” All U.S. Politicians Oppose

theintercept.com The Only Kind of “Political Violence” All U.S. Politicians Oppose

The Trump rally shooting in Pennsylvania reveals a bipartisan consensus about what constitutes political violence — and who should wield it.

The chorus of condemnation was predictable and not in itself a problem: There’s nothing wrong with desiring a world without stochastic assassination attempts, even against political opponents. But when you have Israel’s minister of foreign affairs, Israel Katz of the fascistic ruling Likud Party, tweeting, “Violence can never ever be part of politics,” the very concept of “political violence” is evacuated of meaning.

The problem is not so much one of hypocrisy or insincerity — vices so common in politics that they hardly merit mention. The issue, rather, is what picture of “political violence” this messaging serves: To say that “political violence” has “no place” in a society organized by political violence at home and abroad is to acquiesce to the normalization of that violence, so long as it is state and capitalist monopolized.

As author Ben Ehrenreich noted on X, “There is no place for political violence against rich, white men. It is antithetical to everything America stands for.”

16 comments

Disagree. Every state will characterize the violence it receives differently than the violence it enacts. Even a well-intended egalitarian state can never equivocate acts of violence against its officers with those done by its officers, because if the state fails to produce an immune response against one attack, it will soon find itself overwhelmed by more. The state has to treat vigilante justice and especially attacks against its officers as illegitimate on principle, or else it will cease to be.
States claim a monopoly on legitimate violence, and I'd even say that's what makes a state a state. If a given geographic region has a hundred different entities that can enact violence without each others' permission, you don't have a state, you have a hundred states.
You cannot ask officers of the state to equivocate violence by and against the state. That's not their job. That judgement is our job.
(You can also argue that the state shouldn't exist, but that's a different and far more interesting discussion than the one the article poses.)
- I think you're viewing the issue from a strategic lens, whereas this article is looking at it from a moral one. Obviously, we can't expect a state to be even-handed with its application of violence for the very reasons you state here. But obviously... that doesn't make it okay.
  In short, I don't think you're actually disagreeing with the article at all.
- I agree with everything you've written.
  And yes, I would argue that the State, in it's current incarnation, shouldn't exist, and that is exactly why we should not as citizens acquiesce to this current power grab (albeit an ideological one), attempting to enshrine political violence as legitimately the domain of the State.
  If you look at the course of just even US history, you will see that the State has grabbed more and more expansive power than could ever have been imagined, and that the original conception of the role of the government (in its immediate rejection of authoritarian Monarchy) was far less dangerous than it exists as today (yes, it was racist, imperialist, sexist, and violent even back then, but it still is, and now it has nukes and black sites and massive pervasive surveillance, and so much more). But power creep is inevitable; power is how States compete with each other, so of course that power creep also extends to its own citizens.
  That one State entity (let alone multiple ones) can truthfully claim to possess the ability to destroy human civilization writ large, and the clear willingness to wield it, should serve as proof that States cannot be trusted to wield violence (which, as you note, States must in order to exist).
  But like you said, that's beyond the scope of the article.

It's true that those very people condemning the shooting are specifically those that are growing an unsafe environment, a climate of exclusion against minorities of any kind and people who do not agree with them. But on the other hand, any act of political violence, especially against a running candidate, is a threat against democracy itself.
In a democratic system, the election system has this very purpose of preventing violence of one pretender against the other, by forcing them to peacefully convince as many people as possible instead of turning anything into a bloody battle for power, like it was in Europe in the 1700s for example when one monarch died. Thus, it could even prevent a situation where a bunch of these pretenders could attract as many followers and/or buy as much weaponry needed to start a civil war - and bring the state itself in conflict in the process. The elections are the best way of insuring a peaceful transition of power, one that would not affect the regular folk, the business environment, the economy, basically anyone who doesn't want to involve themselves into politics to such an extent that it would affect them personally.
Once you turn to murdering candidates/politicians, no matter how white the candidate is, how poor the candidate is, what gender they are, their profession, anything, you are committing political violence. And once you are committing political violence, you strain away from democracy, and you're incentivizing a return to a system where the power should be won by force instead of by belief.
And the amount of blood one leader has on their hands from killing civilians, bombing countries etc. would not be lower in such a system, but instead it would add up with the blood of probably other innocent civilians from their homeland whose only mistake was their political affiliations.
Would you prefer to go to fight in order to support your candidate instead of going to the ballots and placing a stamp on a piece of paper? I'm sure most of you would not.
- But on the other hand, any act of political violence, especially against a running candidate, is a threat against democracy itself.
  This is true, but sometimes candidates are also themselves threats to democracy.
  Is a vote to abolish democracy, democracy?
  If you believe Democracy is simply a process, with no moral superiority to non-democratic alternatives, then you'd probably say, "yes".
  If you believe Democracy is a morally-imperative state that underpins freedom to self-determine as a group, then you'd probably say, "no".
  
  @t3rmit3 So political violence is justifiable when democracy is at risk, right. What happens if the side abolishing democracy decides that political violence can be justified for them too? How can you save democracy this way? We legitimate political violence in order to justify democracy? Will it still be a democracy if the elected candidate can be gunned down legitimately? What about if the candidate has the biggest chance of winning?
  And also, how can you justify democracy as the better option in front of non-democratic states that are also making use of political violence to repress their opponents? Don't you think these countries would be more determined in their suppressions when they see that the good guys are also doing it?
  And last, but not least, does that freedom to self-determine as a group also involve becoming politically violent against your opponent? To which extent is this still a democracy and not a fight for power by all means?

Just wanted to say that I really enjoyed this article, and in addition the comments you've been making here on top have also been of great quality besides. Thanks you for posting this!
- Aw, thank you! Cheers!

Big surprise: other politicians don't want to be shot doing their job.

🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles: ::: spoiler Click here to see the summary Politicians swiftly coalesced around the language of “political violence,” rather than terrorism, to describe the assassination attempt, carried out by Thomas Matthew Crooks, who was shot dead at the Western Pennsylvania rally.
“The idea that there’s political violence … in America like this, is just unheard of, it’s just not appropriate,” said President Joe Biden, the backer of Israel’s genocidal war against Palestine, with a death toll that researchers believe could reach 186,000 Palestinians.
Biden’s narrower point was correct, though: Deadly attacks on the American ruling class are vanishingly rare these days.
“There is absolutely no place for political violence in our democracy,” tweeted former President Barack Obama, who oversaw war efforts and military strikes against Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan with massive civilian death tolls; Obama added that we should “use this moment to recommit ourselves to civility and respect in our politics.” “There is no place for political violence, including the horrific incident we just witnessed in Pennsylvania,” wrote Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.
Trump and his Republican Party will no doubt remain committed to a political imaginary of apocalyptic race war and paranoid tribalism, which the assassination attempt will likely only feed.
Democratic leaders will call for civility and continue to fill the coffers of police departments nationwide, while sending billions of condition-free dollars and bombs to Israel.
Saved 70% of original text. :::

16 comments

Is a vote to abolish democracy, democracy?