By Robert Tracinski
Thursday, June 29, 2017
Political violence has seemingly come back into fashion
this year, in part because of the so-called “resistance” against President
Trump—itself a metaphor for violent guerilla warfare, in the absence of a
tyranny that requires resistance.
But it’s not actual violence that is in vogue so much as
fantasizing about violence. Just in the past few weeks, we’ve had Kathy Griffin
doing a photo shoot with her chopping off the head of a Donald Trump mannequin
and New Yorkers flocking to see Trump as Julius Caesar getting stabbed to death
in a Shakespeare play. (Yes, the play is deep and explores complex issues, but
who are we kidding? Stabbing Trump to death in front of a bunch of Upper West
Side liberals is an obvious form of fanservice.)
Just in the past week, we’ve heard Johnny Depp
fantasizing about being the second actor to assassinate a president. Great
company he’s got there. Then my favorite: a drawing circulating around on the
Internet in response to the Republicans’ Obamacare “replacement” bill—depicting
Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as a blood-spattered killer
gleefully holding up a knife.
It’s not that different from the targets they sell at the
shooting range that are meant to represent the scary intruder you’re practicing
to gun down.
During the middle of all of this, in totally unrelated
news, an angry man who spent way too much time on anti-Republican Facebook
groups, showed up at a practice for a congressional charity baseball game and
shot at a bunch of Republican politicians, seriously wounding Rep. Steve
Scalise, as well as a congressional aide, a lobbyist, and a Capitol
policewoman.
I’m not saying that any of the celebrities playing around
with assassination fantasies are directly responsible for the actions of the
congressional baseball shooter. Shooting off your mouth is not the same thing
as shooting off a gun. There will always be angry people who locate the source
of their troubles in some unsuspecting public figure, whose violent death is
the supposed solution for the wreck they’ve made out of their lives. This
wouldn’t stop if we all suddenly just decided to talk nicely to each other
about politics. People would find some other reason to shoot someone, like
shooting the president to impress an actress.
But that’s not really the point. The point is: why do
normal people want to behave this way? Why can’t they restrain themselves from
playing around with the tropes and trappings of the political killer? What
drives them to invest ordinary politics with such vitriol that they fantasize
about murdering people on the other side?
That drawing of McConnell as a bloodthirsty killer who
must be stopped is the giveaway. Why is he portrayed that way? Because he wants
to alter the rules by which the government subsidizes health insurance. He’s
not even trying to repeal Obamacare; the current bill is a messy compromise
that mostly just tinkers with Obamacare. The only way this makes McConnell into
a cold-blooded killer is if you project way too much importance and efficacy
onto the activities of government—if you think that government policies,
particularly those that involve more government spending and regulation, are
the very wellspring of life, which your political opposition is arbitrarily
cutting off.
If government power is the people’s best and only hope,
then to deny the use of that power, or even to exercise it in the wrong way, is
just like killing people. So you are
naturally going to long to see the political malefactors behind such a policy
struck down, for the same reasons we love the scene in the action movie when
the bad guy finally falls off the skyscraper and gets what’s coming to him.
This attitude is not strictly limited to the provinces of
the Left where we currently see it so flamboyantly displayed. As we have
recently discovered, some on the Right also look to government for salvation,
hoping that the right kind of limits on trade and immigration, the right deals
made by the right dealmaker, will solve all of our problems—and anyone who
doesn’t support that leader is a traitor.
But the basic idea of government as salvation is
associated more with the Left, because expanding the power of government is
their primary political cause. Not only that, in idealizing the power of
government, they also idealize the methods or instruments of government: force,
coercion, violence.
What has been running through my mind over the past few
weeks is an essay written in 1894 by a long-forgotten defender of liberty named
Auberon Herbert: “The Ethics of Dynamite.” Dynamite was a new technology then,
the first modern high explosive, and Herbert was specifically referring to a
European craze of mad bombers who adopted this new weapon as their tool for
lashing out at the rest of society and trying to terrorize people into adopting
their half-baked political programs. Basically, it was Ted Kaczynski, The Early
Years.
The good citizens of the world were quite scandalized by
this trend of dynamite bombers, but what Herbert pointed out was that the
dynamiter was simply the most consistent form, the reductio ad absurdum, of the increasingly influential new theory of
government. Dynamite, he wrote, “is a purer essence of government, more
concentrated and intensified, than has ever yet been employed. It is government
in a nutshell.” In other words: do what I say, or die. He hailed it as the
ultimate product of the “doctrine of deified force.”
We are living now in this new world of dynamite. No
wonder our political rhetoric is so explosive.
All of our politics today is a threat to coerce, or
resentment against coercion, or a plan to coerce people in a different and
supposedly better way. If the end goal is coercion, no wonder people fantasize
about using force or violence as the means. No wonder they grow so livid when
the wrong person gets into office and dares to control the apparatus of
coercion they created. And it’s no wonder they fantasize about bumping him off.
There’s a reason there is not merely a legal but a
cultural taboo against threatening to assassinate the president, no matter who
he is, or against killing political leaders. We don’t want a political system
that is ruled by force. But if we want to lower the stakes of politics and pull
people back from the edge of quasi-murderous rage, we need a much stronger
taboo against the threat of coercion against anyone. We need to defuse the
“doctrine of deified force.”
No comments:
Post a Comment