By Noah Rothman
Monday, July 01,
2019
Within the institutions that cater to the American left,
a contradictory notion has taken hold. It has become an article of faith that
the right is responsible for the rising tide of political violence in America.
At the same time, however, those who engage in violence in defense of the
left’s program are often lauded for their refusal to adhere to outdated and
insufficient norms of civil conduct.
Since the 1980s, “the extreme right has held a
near-monopoly on political violence,” wrote the Nation’s Joshua Holland in 2017. A “decades-long drop-off in
violence by left-wing groups,” coincided with a shocking rise in murderous
violence by “right-wing extremists,” read a 2018 report from the
Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism. The idea of the “violent left” is
even a “myth,” the Southern Poverty Law Center averred just last week, designed
to radicalize the right to preemptively attack its political adversaries. And
when murderous left-wing violence occurs, it is contextualized into
insignificance, as was the case when NPR opened a report on the mass shooting
of Republicans in Alexandria with the line: “Some conservatives have seized on
Wednesday’s shooting of Republican Rep. Steve Scalise…”
But when mythological left-wing violence becomes
impossible to ignore, it is often excused or even lionized—sometimes in the
very venues in which its existence is dismissed.
Dartmouth College lecturer and “historian of human
rights,” Mark Bray, has refashioned himself as America’s foremost Antifa
apologist. In his book and in places like the Washington Post, he’s argued that “physical violence against white
supremacists is both ethically justifiable and strategically effective.” The Nation’s Natasha Lennard has similarly
praised this organization’s “militant left-wing and anarchist politics,” and
mocked its critics as “civility-fetishizing” liberals who “cling to
institutions.” Nor is Antifa alone in this campaign. A Mother Jones profile of the many left-of-center grassroots groups
whose resistance “sometimes goes beyond nonviolent protest—including picking up
arms” is anything but condemnatory. Given this preamble, it’s hardly a surprise
to see how the arbiters of national political discourse responded to the recent
Antifa-led gang assault on the journalist Andy Ngo.
Ngo has dedicated himself to chronicling Antifa’s
increasingly menacing activities, particularly in his home city of Portland,
Oregon. He’s videotaped Antifa mobs beating people
bloody, capturing control of city blocks and attacking
passing motorists, and vandalizing
property—all without
police interference. This weekend, Ngo himself became the target of Antifa
violence. A crowd of demonstrators, clad in black and with their faces covered,
were seen taking turns throwing objects at Ngo, beating him about the head, and
spraying caustic substances in his face. The reporter was hospitalized with
head trauma, one of several victims of this mob’s bloodlust.
The violence against Ngo received nationwide coverage… on
Twitter. When it was discussed at more length in the press, it was subjected to
the kind of deconstruction that robs these violent episodes of their urgency. National Review’s Jim Geraghty observed
the Oregonian take pains to avoid
ruling out the possibility that Ngo’s assailants were provoked to the point of
savage violence. Huffington Post reporter Christopher Mathias and briefly
retained New York University journalism lecturer Talia Levin mocked the assault
as insufficiently bloody. Countless reporters and institutions, including the
Associated Press, questioned Ngo’s journalistic credentials—a non sequitur that
serves no higher purpose than tacitly legitimizing the attack on him.
Ngo’s ordeal should not have come as a surprise, and not
just among those who recall how journalists were attacked and their equipment
vandalized by leftwing protesters in Virginia less than a year ago. As I
chronicle in detail in my book, political violence has been on the rise for
years and it is at least as attributable to the left as it is the right.
In August of 2016, as the American press was consumed by
the theoretical prospect of mass violence meted out by Donald Trump’s
supporters, the observable phenomenon of anti-Trump mob violence was going all
but unnoticed. Both the spontaneous and organized forms of “anti-fascist
action” had become a common feature of the political landscape on the activist
fringes by August of that election year. The fever hadn’t broken by October,
when a Republican Party office in North Carolina was firebombed, nor did it
abate by inauguration day, when over 200 people were arrested in connection
with a nationwide spasm of rioting and property destruction. The far left’s
urge to engage in political violence was on display in Berkeley, California, in
2017, where two scheduled pro-Trump rallies ended in bloodshed. The far left’s
violent impulses were seen last year, when Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s
California offices were attacked and burglarized, a gunman shot up a GOP
satellite office in Florida, and a New York City Republican union hall was
vandalized.
Post-hoc justifications for engaging in politics by other
means are not hard to find. “Abandoning civility,” the Atlantic staff writer Vann Newkirk wrote in 2016, is necessary when
engaging with people who “have already breached the bounds of civility.” You
can see shades of this logic reflected in this weekend’s op-eds in the Washington Post by Red Hen restaurant
owner Stephanie Wilkinson, who called on her fellow restaurateurs to deny
service to “an unwelcome potential patron” because of his or her politics. It’s
evident in a Saturday New York Times
opinion piece, which called on Americans to name and shame their fellow
citizens who work in border patrol. These are not incitements to violence, but
nor do they see the traditional conduct of politics as sufficient to the
urgency of the moment. What’s required of responsible citizens is the total
national merging of public and private life, and common courtesies are a luxury
we can no longer afford.
In a society in which politics is tantamount to fighting
an existential war, observing the bounds of civic decency is tantamount to
suicide. To certain minds, the notion that it is a moral imperative to drum
people of a particular political persuasion out of civic and cultural life
demands violence. Anything less is capitulatory.
Of course, it must be said that the right has its own
violent fringe, which it has failed to sufficiently denounce and has encouraged
by confusing political disagreements with existential crises. It only must be
said, however, because the professionally obtuse will try to claim that any
condemnation of leftist political violence tacitly condones its mirror image on
the right. This kind of intellectual vacuity is sadly common. It also explains
why there is almost no urgency within the political class to make examples of
their side’s reprehensibly anti-social activists—there isn’t much upside and
there is a lot of risk involved. But it seems increasingly likely that the
growing menace posed by politicized street violence will one day focus the
public’s minds on the problem. The only question is the scale of the tragedy
that will force us to confront the threat.
No comments:
Post a Comment