By Jonah Goldberg
Saturday, June 04, 2016
Sometimes, when I don’t know what to write about in this
“news”letter, I sacrifice a goat to Baal for inspiration. But my goat guy is on
vacation (you know life is tough for pundits when your sacrificial goat dealer
can afford to go on nicer vacations than you). So I asked my Twitter followers
for suggestions instead.
My friend Drew Cline asked me to write about what would
happen if Donald Trump shot a gorilla in the middle of Fifth Avenue. I thought
it was an interesting hypothetical, but even better would be what if it was a Mexican gorilla. Or, what if it was an
American gorilla whose parents were from Mexico? Or, what if the gorilla had
fraudulently edited a video of a focus group of Second Amendment supporters?
Even better, what if the gorilla worked for National
Review and was considering running as an independent in the presidential
election?
Or what if I realized that mashing-up the news of the
week into a single topic isn’t such a great idea?
Instead, I’ll go with the most frequently suggested
topic: the violent protests at Trump’s rally.
The Violence
Double Standard
I think my record is fairly clear that I am not Donald
Trump’s most committed supporter. Indeed, compared with me, Paul Ryan looks
positively euphoric in his hostage-video endorsement of Trump. (How funny would
it have been if the AP kept the camera rolling as Ryan took off his mic and he
yelled to an aide “Can someone call Corey Lewandowski and tell him he can
release my family now!?”)
And yet, it’s an absolute no-brainer for me that these
goons, thugs, and morons in California must be condemned for their violent
tactics yesterday.
I don’t believe that all violence is equal. I subscribe
to the William F. Buckley line on such moral equivalence. As Bill put it, if
one man pushes old ladies in front of buses and another pushes old ladies out
of the way of oncoming buses, you cannot describe them both as the sorts of men
who “push old ladies around.” Well, actually you could describe them that way,
but what you gained in technical accuracy would be offset in moral vapidity.
But in a democracy the rules are different. In political
contests there are no such things as fighting words. The state has a monopoly
on force, and when activists violate that monopoly, the state has a right to
stop it, gently if possible, forcibly if necessary.
When Trump encouraged violence at his rallies — and he
did — the media rightly condemned him for it. They went further than that,
actually. They openly fretted about the health of our political system and the
threat Trump posed to it. Personally, I think the rhetoric of those concerns
was at times overblown, but the underlying concerns were entirely valid. I
think Trump is an irresponsible demagogue and his supporters who use violence
are goons.
But the social-justice-warrior shock troops attacking
Trump’s supporters are no better. And yet, the response from the same media
figures has been, shall we say, more muted. An editor at Vox even seems to think rioting is a legitimate weapon in political
discourse, when aimed at the right target.
(This is the same outlet that treated Trump’s
encouragement of violence quite differently, indeed as a “threat to democracy
itself.”)
Of course, this is nothing new. Fred Siegel has written
at great length about how the Great Society agenda was passed through a kind of
liberal extortion.
In the summer of 1966, Attorney
General Nicholas Katzenbach warned that there would be riots by angry, poor
minority residents in ‘30 or 40’ American cities if Congress didn’t pass
President Lyndon Johnson’s Model Cities antipoverty legislation. In the late
1960s, New York mayor John Lindsay used the fear of such rioting to expand
welfare rolls dramatically at a time when the black male unemployment rate was
about 4 percent. And in the 1980s, Washington, D.C., mayor Marion Barry
articulated an explicitly racial version of collective bargaining — a threat
that, without ample federal funds, urban activists would unleash wave after
wave of racial violence. ‘I know for a fact,’ Barry explained, ‘that white
people get scared of the [Black] Panthers, and they might give money to
somebody a little more moderate.’
This brand of thinking, which I
have called the riot ideology, influenced urban politics for a generation, from
the 1960s through the 1980s. Perhaps its model city was Baltimore, which, in
1968, was consumed by race riots so intense that the Baltimore police, 500
Maryland state troopers, and 6,000 National Guardsmen were unable to quell
them. The ‘insurrection’ was halted only when nearly 5,000 federal troops
requested by Maryland governor Spiro Agnew arrived.
My only disagreement here is that I don’t think this
started in the ’60s or ended in the ’80s. I think it’s safe to say that few
left-wing labor historians — by which I mean nearly all labor historians —
treat the various labor riots a century ago as outrageous violations of the
rule of law. The 1992 LA riots — widely described as a “rebellion” by riot
ideologists — were routinely cited as a justification for vast new spending on
HUD and the expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act, which contributed to
the financial crisis of 2008.
Of course, left-wing rioting isn’t simply a cynical
political tactic for the Left, it’s also a modern expression of political
romanticism. Remember when the mayor of Baltimore matter-of-factly said, “We
also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.”
Nor is it just rioting: Political violence has always
been graded on a curve. I don’t want to eat out of Jay Nordlinger’s food bowl,
but if the Left considered all violence, including cold-blooded murder, as
categorically and unequivocally evil, Che Guevara onesies would not exist, O.J.
Simpson would have been thrown in jail 20 years ago, and Hillary Clinton would
never have been so sympathetic to the Black Panthers.
Shed a Tear for
the Tea Parties
It’s no exaggeration to say that this double standard
amounts to a profound moral rot in our politics. I don’t need to cite chapter
and verse about how the profoundly peaceful and law-abiding Tea Party movement
was treated as a proto-fascist army of vigilantes while the Occupy movement was
seen as a heartwarming expression of authentic people power. Never mind that
violence was far more endemic to the Occupy movement. Left-wing youth,
particularly minority youth, who threaten and intimidate people and destroy
property, are seen as expressing their righteous passion. Right-wing youth who
do likewise are terrifying harbingers of fascism and authoritarianism.
My own view is that anyone
who engages in such tactics should be condemned. And, if you actually read Liberal Fascism, you’d know that I think
the ideologies driving such behavior on both the left and the right are more
similar than different.
And that is what is so frightening about where we may be
heading. And it is why I am so heartbroken by the failure of the Tea Parties.
As Glenn Reynolds noted last March, the liberals and
moderates wetting themselves over Trump blew it when they allowed the Tea
Parties to be smeared and demonized as racist. They were cheerful, patriotic,
law-abiding, and principled. Their agenda, for the most part (every movement
has knuckleheads) upheld the very best ideals of this country:
constitutionalism, limited government, and, in terms of policy, living within
our means without overtaxing the most productive economy in human history.
Sure, there were opportunists and rabble rousers at some rallies, but given
fair treatment and responsible leadership, the Tea Party was the ideal vessel
for a populism-infused movement to rein in government responsibly.
Responding to David Brooks’s column about the Trump
movement, Reynolds wrote:
When politeness and orderliness are
met with contempt and betrayal, do not be surprised if the response is
something less polite, and less orderly. Brooks closes his Trump column with
Psalm 73, but a more appropriate verse is Hosea 8:7 ‘For they have sown the
wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.’ Trump’s ascendance is a symptom of a
colossal failure among America’s political leaders, of which Brooks’
mean-spirited insularity is only a tiny part. God help us all.
Amen.
So now the de facto leader of the Republican party is a
“counter-puncher,” and his fans love him for it (he’s also just a punch-firster
— and a low-blow puncher at that — and if you can’t see that, it’s probably
because you’re enthralled in resentment or his cult of personality).
Through innuendo, insinuation, and sometimes outright
incitement Trump is fighting fire with fire. He argues that a judge is
unqualified to hear his Trump University fraud case because he’s a “Mexican.”
Never mind that the judge is not a Mexican, he’s an American with Mexican
parents.
Philosophically, this is no different from a Black Lives
Matter zealot arguing that a white judge can’t hear cases involving a black
defendant. It’s no different than claiming Jews can’t be judges in Islamic
terrorism cases.
Then-judge Michael Mukasey faced exactly such a claim in
the first World Trade Center bombing case. Here was his reply (emphasis mine):
Passing the historical curiosity
that the standard El-Gabrowny advocates would disqualify not only an obscure
district judge such as the author of this opinion, but also Justices Brandeis
and Frankfurter, who would be barred from reviewing this case if they were
alive and sitting today, each having been both a Jew and a Zionist, see P. Strum, Louis D. Brandeis 268 (Harvard University Press 1984), whether the
presiding judge is an Orthodox Jew or a Zionist or some combination of the two,
or neither, is utterly irrelevant to this case. That someone with an imagination
or a motive might hallucinate relevance is not the standard, and therefore
cannot provide the basis for decision. That is why I have not answered
and will not answer the questions posed by El-Gabrowny’s counsel about
connections to Israel between me and my wife and our relatives to the third
degree of consanguinity. To respond to such inquiries is to concede the
relevance of the information.
There is no relevant fact, no principle of logic, and no rule of law
that supports this motion. Accordingly, the motion is denied.
The Center
Crumbles
The Tea Parties were not a white identity-politics
movement. But liberal elites treated it as such and now we’ve got the
beginnings of one. And while I’d be happy to engage in a debate about who
started it, I don’t think it’s necessary because it’s so frickin’ obvious.
Moreover, as any parent knows, identifying who started unacceptable behavior is
not an exercise in excusing unacceptable
behavior (no matter how much Trump thinks “He started it!” is a
justification for any calumny, including suggesting that Ted Cruz’s father was
in on the Kennedy assassination). If two brothers are throwing rocks at each
other, you might punish Timmy more for starting it, but you wouldn’t tell Tommy
it’s okay to have rock fights.
And this points to why the anti-Trump protesters are such
monumental morons. Every time they live down to our expectations, they stoke
the coal in the Trump Train’s furnace. The ultimate result of the 1968
Democratic convention riots was to get Richard Nixon elected. And as sure as
shinola you can expect the Left to start talking about how such violence is
justified. Indeed, they already have.
As the corruption of the GOP proceeds, it’s very easy to
see Republican politicians following the path of Mike Huckabee and others who
think every misdeed by Trump is justified by the misdeeds of his opponents.
Already the logic of “if you’re against Trump, you are for Hillary” has
ensorcelled even very serious minds on the right (including countless friends
of mine). Similarly, Hillary Clinton is doing everything she can to encourage
the notion that if you’re against her, you’re for Donald Trump. It is becoming
impossible to stand athwart both on the sidelines these days, at least for
mainstream conservatives and liberals (libertarians and socialists have
fortified their turn-off cul-de-sacs for years). One must stand in the middle
of the road*, and that is where people get run over. The center will not hold.
No comments:
Post a Comment