Here at RedState we’ve documented the violence of both Trump supporters and anti-Trump protesters that has become a hallmark of this particular election season. As a rule, most of us oppose political violence and, personally, I think that the anti-Trump violence plays into Trump’s hands: creating chaos and motivating people to vote for him who might otherwise be in opposition. Vox.com even suspended an editor for advocating violence.
That standard does not apply to The Huffington Post where one of their contributors calls for what can only be described actual, no sh** warfare on Trump supporters.
The writer is a guy name Jesse Bern. Charitably put, guys like Bern are uniquely unsuited to surviving in an environment where random violence it the way of life, but they are extremely adept at encouraging others to do it (the technical term for such a person is “pu**y):
It is ironic, because on my side we have the same people. They are the guys who spout Ayn Rand at the drop of a hat but would be living in a refrigerator carton under a bridge someplace if this idyllic libertarian, free market space they covet actuall existed. I include most of the staff of Reason in this category.
The article it titled Sorry Liberals, A Violent Response To Trump Is As Logical As Any
Trump has not just flagrantly violated the typical boundaries of political discourse, his candidacy is linked to multiple instances of violence. It shouldn’t be a surprise that opposition to him has responded in kind. Yet, a lot of people seem shocked and appalled at this perfectly logical reaction. In the face of media, politicians, and GOP primary voters normalizing Trump as a presidential candidate—whatever your personal beliefs regarding violent resistance—there’s an inherent value in forestalling Trump’s normalization. Violent resistance accomplishes this. In spite of this, such resistance is apparently more offensive and unacceptable to societal norms and liberal sensibilities than the nastiness being resisted in the first place.
Yeah. Because violence never begets violence. I mean, hell, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria, and any number of other places tells you that tit-for-tat violence is no big thing.
Point one. These denunciations of violence from anti-Trump protestors rest on the misguided view that the divide Trump’s exposed is a typical political disagreement between partisans, and should be handled as such. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Trump might not be a fascist in the 20th century European sense of the term—though many of his supporters are—but he might represent its 21st century US version…Treating this like politics as usual allows it to become politics as usual, and those who do so risk complicity ushering in a new era of fascist politics in the United States. Violence that takes place at Trump rallies—in support or opposition—is a reaction to the tone he’s set, and the blame for it should land primarily on his shoulders.
Again, arguendo,let’s assume that one actually believes the premise to be true. You cannot go from that to the conclusion that a) violence is a proper response, b) the violence you foment is controllable, or c) that there is even a likelihood that you will win the exchange. If your goal is to stop violence as a political tool, and let’s be clear, the number of police officers injured by Trump supporters is zero. Six cops were injured in Albuquerque, alone, by anti-Trump demonstrators, it does not follow that political violence is the way to go about that.
Point two. Politicians and liberal pundits seem to believe the principal goal for everyone resisting Trump is to halt his entry into the Oval Office… My biggest issue with looking at the Trump problem as an exclusively political issue, though, is that if he loses this fall everyone will go back to ignoring the things that got us here in the first place. No matter who wins in November, the forces underpinning his rise will remain.
Trump doesn’t exist in a vacuum. He’s the natural consequence of, among other things, Republicans longstanding embrace of racism, perpetual attacks on the credibility of media, scientists, and the federal government, defunding public education, railing against so-called PC culture, and using immigrants as scape goats. Defeating these systems of power and their underlying apparatuses—think tanks, conservative radio, Fox News, the Tea Party, etc.—is a much longer-term and more demanding task than assuring Trump isn’t elected. Taking on the attitudes that drive them is even more difficult. Assuming anti-Trump protests should be strictly focused on electoral politics and not these broader goals would be a detrimental oversight. Understanding European anti-fascists use of violent tactics to shut down large rallies from White Supremacists can be illustrative here. Because while Trump isn’t leading full bore White Supremacist rallies, there is value in making it clear that even his fascism-lite has no place in civilized society. And whether his candidacy represents how fascism comes to the US or he’s simply opened the door to it is immaterial. Either should be stopped post haste.
Here, we get to the real agenda. This clown is not trying to shut down Donald Trump, he is trying to legitimize violence against any candidate that he can hang one of his pet “phobias” on. If he succeeds, this will become a standard tactic in every election. This is pretty much how any totalitarian state gets started, by bloodying its political opponents.
Point three. Violent resistance matters. Riots can lead to major change (*note the irony of that hyperlink going to a Vox article). It’s not liberal politicians or masses that historians identify as the spark underlying the modern movement for LGBTQ equality. Nor was it a think piece from some smarmy liberal writer. It was the people who took to the streets during the Stonewall Uprising. It was the Watts Rebellion, not the Watts Battle of Ideas, that exposed the enduring systemic neglect, poverty, inequality, and racism faced by that community. Similarly, it was the LA Uprising, not the LA Protests, that led to significant changes in the Los Angeles Police Department. More recently, the Ferguson and Baltimore Uprisings both helped prompt the Justice Department to investigate their corrupt police forces. And since we’re talking about fascism, it’s worth remembering that it wasn’t the election of a moderate centrist (hello, Hillary) or a sanguine protest that stopped its ascent in Europe. It was, primarily, the Russian military, and to a lesser extent the US military; neither of which practiced nonviolence if memory serves.
Does it look like anyone won? Many areas devastated by the Rodney King riots have yet to recover.
More to the point, this guy seems to think that at no point will the police intervene. I’d point out that if you want to mark the end of large scale antiwar riots, look at the perfect storm of Kent State (May 4, 1970) and the Jackson State (May 15, 1970) shooting. Which groups are more likely to have a large number of veterans and/or people who own firearms? Trump supporters, or in this ass’s ideal world Rupublicans, or the protesters he’s encouraging.
This guy is a harmless, ineffectual, androgynous pustule. But he is encouraging people who are no smarter than himself to an ever increasing frequency and level of violence. Why Huffington Post thinks this is acceptable is simply beyond understanding.