When It Comes to Political Violence, Hold Democrats to Their Own Standard

[CivilDiscourse]

It's funny, those who complain about the Right's rhetoric always fall silent when something like the MTG Swatting or Kavanaugh Assassination attempt happen.

Source: https://www.commentary.org/noah-rothman/when-it-comes-to-political-violence-hold-democrats-to-their-own-standard/

No one is responsible for an act of violence, or even an attempted act of violence, but the violent. Incendiary rhetoric that heightens tensions to the point that it risks agitating the already disturbed is reckless and irresponsible by its own rights, but rhetoricians are almost never liable for the behavior of the deranged. That is not, however, what Democrats or their allies in the press believe, as they often attest. To hold them to their own self-set standards would be to implicate the left’s rash indiscretion as a motivating factor for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s would-be assassin.

Just before 2 a.m. on Wednesday, a 26-year-old California man was apprehended outside Kavanaugh’s Maryland home. After traveling across the country, the alleged gunman arrived outside Kavanaugh’s residence armed with a pistol and mountable handgun light, two magazines, a tactical knife, pepper spray, zip ties, a hammer, a screwdriver, a crowbar, a nail pouch, and duct tape. According to the affidavit, he planned the premeditated murder of the justice and whoever got in his way, and he planned to kill himself afterward. The alleged assailant told police he was motivated by his antipathy to, among other cases on the Court’s docket, a leaked draft of a possible High Court decision that would overturn the precedent established by Roe v. Wade.

To take the accused assailant at his word, he was animated by high-stakes political debates playing out in the Court, and he hoped this violent act would “give his life a purpose.” If the potential shooter had even casual contact with the heightened rhetoric around that draft decision, it’s not hard to see how he convinced himself that this terroristic act would be considered an act of virtue.

“[I]f you are able to afford it, and if it is safe for you to do so, you should consider arming yourselves, then finding others to train with in teams and learn how to defend your community,” wrote Chelsea Manning in a viral tweet on the night of the draft decision’s reveal in the press. “We may need these skills in the very near future.” Manning might be a fringe figure, but this was hardly a fringe opinion. “Good,” replied the Nation’s Washington D.C. correspondent in reaction to a comment envisioning threats to conservative justices and their families as a result of the leak. The leak “will foster anger and distrust within the irredeemable institution that is the Supreme Court,” Vox.com justice correspondent Ian Milhiser wrote in a series of now-deleted tweets. He applauded the actions of what he assumed was someone within the institution who decided to “burn this place down,”

If this was just a fit of pique, activist organizations did their best to preserve their state of agitation. The group “Ruth Sent Us” soon published a list of the Court’s conservative justices’ home addresses and urged their followers to “rise up to force accountability using a diversity of tactics.” Hundreds did just that, targeting Kavanaugh with particular ferocity. “For the protesters chanting loudly outside Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s home,” the New York Times reported, “incivility was the point.” Demonstrators willingly confessed to reporters their intention to menace the justices and their families.

These frightening (and likely illegal) tactics were condoned in the left-leaning press. “The suggestion that we can just vote this problem away ignores the fact that the people who promise to fight for abortion rights have failed again and again to uphold them,” The Cut’s Claire Lampen opined. The system had failed, and Kavanaugh’s “fear” was due comeuppance. “Their decision will disrupt countless lives,” she concluded. “Theirs can withstand a little disruption, too.”

Asked about the threatening displays, White House Press Sec. Jen Psaki could not initially muster any sympathy for the targeted justices. “Look, I think the president’s view is that there’s a lot of passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness from many, many people across this country about what they saw in that leaked document,” she said. And though they reliably expressed the caveat that demonstrations had to remain peaceful, too many Democratic lawmakers also declined to condemn these uncivil displays.

On May 13, the Department of Homeland Security warned law-enforcement agencies to brace for acts of extremism and violence ahead and in the immediate wake of a Supreme Court decision on Dobbs. They were right to do so. In the weeks since that leak, pro-life organizations and crisis pregnancy centers around the country have been targeted by vandals and arsonists. Those who warned that these expressions of violence had the potential to culminate in something far worse were routinely dismissed and shouted down by activists who believed they would benefit from the zeal on display in the streets.

We don’t have to imagine how Democrats and the left-leaning mainstream press would react if the partisan roles were reversed here. Republicans’ violent rhetoric and its potential to lead to the real thing is a source of constant apprehension in media, and complicity for those acts of violence—if and when they occur—is routinely laid at the feet of the GOP writ large; leadership and rank-and-file alike.

“Silence is complicity,” the Washington Post editorial board declared on March 3 in response to a poll that showed roughly one-third of GOP voters would not reject violent remedies if they were needed to “save our country.” That, they averred, was a direct outgrowth of the language Republican lawmakers used. “By not speaking out even in response to overt calls for lethal vengeance and death threats against political foes, Republican officials send a clear message that violence itself is a plausible alternative to debate, and even a palatable one.”

When the often thoughtless Rep. Paul Gosar tweeted a video featuring himself as an anime character killing a cartoon version of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with a sword, the Associated Press deemed the Republican conference’s “silence” an act of tacit support for such conduct. “One of the nation’s two major political parties appears increasingly tolerant of at least some persistent level of violence in American discourse, or at least willing to turn a blind eye to it,” the AP reported. It was “part of a broader pattern in which the party tries to minimize such behavior.”

“Clearly this kind of messaging, where you’re calling out political opponents while you’re shooting at a gun range, is a kind of a violent threat,” Louisiana State University professor Nathan Kalmoe said of a video in which U.S. Senate Candidate from Missouri, Eric Greitens, joined Donald Trump Jr. to fire semi-automatic weapons at a gun range. Sen. Rick Scott has been accused of “making a not so coded appeal for political violence.” So have Reps. Mo Brooks, Madison Cawthorn, Matt Gaetz, and an untold number of right-wing talkers and organizations, with varying degrees of legitimacy.

Ideally, at a time when lawmakers are reporting a rise in threats against them from the hyper-politicized, over-agitated public, all political actors would exercise more caution. The conditions that directly implicate a politician in someone else’s act of violence (like, say, advertising that you would pay the legal fees that result from an act of political violence) are exceedingly rare, but that is not a license to whip up a mob. Those who urge prudence, caution, and circumspection at this delicate moment are dispensing good advice.

If Democrats and their media allies are serious about policing irresponsible conduct, we would expect them to police their own. If, however, we were only privy to a campaign of political advantage-seeking, that kind of consistency would be hard to find. So far, given the absurd dearth of coverage that the potential assassination of a Supreme Court justice has received, we have more evidence in support of the latter than the former.

© Copyright Original Source

[rogue06]

It's funny, those who complain about the Right's rhetoric always fall silent when something like the MTG Swatting or Kavanaugh Assassination attempt happen.

Source: https://www.commentary.org/noah-rothman/when-it-comes-to-political-violence-hold-democrats-to-their-own-standard/

No one is responsible for an act of violence, or even an attempted act of violence, but the violent. Incendiary rhetoric that heightens tensions to the point that it risks agitating the already disturbed is reckless and irresponsible by its own rights, but rhetoricians are almost never liable for the behavior of the deranged. That is not, however, what Democrats or their allies in the press believe, as they often attest. To hold them to their own self-set standards would be to implicate the left’s rash indiscretion as a motivating factor for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s would-be assassin.

Just before 2 a.m. on Wednesday, a 26-year-old California man was apprehended outside Kavanaugh’s Maryland home. After traveling across the country, the alleged gunman arrived outside Kavanaugh’s residence armed with a pistol and mountable handgun light, two magazines, a tactical knife, pepper spray, zip ties, a hammer, a screwdriver, a crowbar, a nail pouch, and duct tape. According to the affidavit, he planned the premeditated murder of the justice and whoever got in his way, and he planned to kill himself afterward. The alleged assailant told police he was motivated by his antipathy to, among other cases on the Court’s docket, a leaked draft of a possible High Court decision that would overturn the precedent established by Roe v. Wade.

To take the accused assailant at his word, he was animated by high-stakes political debates playing out in the Court, and he hoped this violent act would “give his life a purpose.” If the potential shooter had even casual contact with the heightened rhetoric around that draft decision, it’s not hard to see how he convinced himself that this terroristic act would be considered an act of virtue.

“[I]f you are able to afford it, and if it is safe for you to do so, you should consider arming yourselves, then finding others to train with in teams and learn how to defend your community,” wrote Chelsea Manning in a viral tweet on the night of the draft decision’s reveal in the press. “We may need these skills in the very near future.” Manning might be a fringe figure, but this was hardly a fringe opinion. “Good,” replied the Nation’s Washington D.C. correspondent in reaction to a comment envisioning threats to conservative justices and their families as a result of the leak. The leak “will foster anger and distrust within the irredeemable institution that is the Supreme Court,” Vox.com justice correspondent Ian Milhiser wrote in a series of now-deleted tweets. He applauded the actions of what he assumed was someone within the institution who decided to “burn this place down,”

If this was just a fit of pique, activist organizations did their best to preserve their state of agitation. The group “Ruth Sent Us” soon published a list of the Court’s conservative justices’ home addresses and urged their followers to “rise up to force accountability using a diversity of tactics.” Hundreds did just that, targeting Kavanaugh with particular ferocity. “For the protesters chanting loudly outside Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s home,” the New York Times reported, “incivility was the point.” Demonstrators willingly confessed to reporters their intention to menace the justices and their families.

These frightening (and likely illegal) tactics were condoned in the left-leaning press. “The suggestion that we can just vote this problem away ignores the fact that the people who promise to fight for abortion rights have failed again and again to uphold them,” The Cut’s Claire Lampen opined. The system had failed, and Kavanaugh’s “fear” was due comeuppance. “Their decision will disrupt countless lives,” she concluded. “Theirs can withstand a little disruption, too.”

Asked about the threatening displays, White House Press Sec. Jen Psaki could not initially muster any sympathy for the targeted justices. “Look, I think the president’s view is that there’s a lot of passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness from many, many people across this country about what they saw in that leaked document,” she said. And though they reliably expressed the caveat that demonstrations had to remain peaceful, too many Democratic lawmakers also declined to condemn these uncivil displays.

On May 13, the Department of Homeland Security warned law-enforcement agencies to brace for acts of extremism and violence ahead and in the immediate wake of a Supreme Court decision on Dobbs. They were right to do so. In the weeks since that leak, pro-life organizations and crisis pregnancy centers around the country have been targeted by vandals and arsonists. Those who warned that these expressions of violence had the potential to culminate in something far worse were routinely dismissed and shouted down by activists who believed they would benefit from the zeal on display in the streets.

We don’t have to imagine how Democrats and the left-leaning mainstream press would react if the partisan roles were reversed here. Republicans’ violent rhetoric and its potential to lead to the real thing is a source of constant apprehension in media, and complicity for those acts of violence—if and when they occur—is routinely laid at the feet of the GOP writ large; leadership and rank-and-file alike.

“Silence is complicity,” the Washington Post editorial board declared on March 3 in response to a poll that showed roughly one-third of GOP voters would not reject violent remedies if they were needed to “save our country.” That, they averred, was a direct outgrowth of the language Republican lawmakers used. “By not speaking out even in response to overt calls for lethal vengeance and death threats against political foes, Republican officials send a clear message that violence itself is a plausible alternative to debate, and even a palatable one.”

When the often thoughtless Rep. Paul Gosar tweeted a video featuring himself as an anime character killing a cartoon version of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with a sword, the Associated Press deemed the Republican conference’s “silence” an act of tacit support for such conduct. “One of the nation’s two major political parties appears increasingly tolerant of at least some persistent level of violence in American discourse, or at least willing to turn a blind eye to it,” the AP reported. It was “part of a broader pattern in which the party tries to minimize such behavior.”

“Clearly this kind of messaging, where you’re calling out political opponents while you’re shooting at a gun range, is a kind of a violent threat,” Louisiana State University professor Nathan Kalmoe said of a video in which U.S. Senate Candidate from Missouri, Eric Greitens, joined Donald Trump Jr. to fire semi-automatic weapons at a gun range. Sen. Rick Scott has been accused of “making a not so coded appeal for political violence.” So have Reps. Mo Brooks, Madison Cawthorn, Matt Gaetz, and an untold number of right-wing talkers and organizations, with varying degrees of legitimacy.

Ideally, at a time when lawmakers are reporting a rise in threats against them from the hyper-politicized, over-agitated public, all political actors would exercise more caution. The conditions that directly implicate a politician in someone else’s act of violence (like, say, advertising that you would pay the legal fees that result from an act of political violence) are exceedingly rare, but that is not a license to whip up a mob. Those who urge prudence, caution, and circumspection at this delicate moment are dispensing good advice.

If Democrats and their media allies are serious about policing irresponsible conduct, we would expect them to police their own. If, however, we were only privy to a campaign of political advantage-seeking, that kind of consistency would be hard to find. So far, given the absurd dearth of coverage that the potential assassination of a Supreme Court justice has received, we have more evidence in support of the latter than the former.

© Copyright Original Source

That doesn't even mention the role that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) rhetoric may have played in instigating the would-be assassin's actions. Back when he marched over to the front steps of the Supreme Court and threatened justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh:

Over the last three years, women’s reproductive rightshave come under attack in a way we haven’t seen in modern history. From Louisiana to Missouri to Texas, Republican legislatures are waging a war on women, all women, and they’re taking away fundamental rights. I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

Wasn't it during the J6 Show that we learned words like "attack" were inflammatory? What about "waging war against"?

In any case, those on the left fell all over themselves defending Schumer was "obviously" nonviolent in nature, and he clearly meant they would pay a "political price."

Given that they are appointed for life such an "obvious" meaning is obviously. B.S. They are not subject to the voter's wrath. There is no "political price" that they are subject to.

Typically, the MSM even called it a smear when Schumer's remarks were brought up in relation to the would-be assassin, like New Yorker magazine angrily huffing Republicans Smearing Chuck Schumer With Kavanaugh Assassination Attempt while continuing the charade that the remarks were "obviously" nonviolent in nature^[1].

But one person who disagreed with that assessment was Schumer himself who apologized for his threat saying he chose his words poorly (so much for what he "obviously" meant).



1 possibly the worst reaction at the time of the remark had to come from the Dingy Dame herself, the New York Times. The threat left the folks at the NYT almost giddy as they calculated how this could help them:

Democratic officials and their progressive allies said that while Mr. Schumer might have gone too far with his inflammatory words, they were not all that unhappy that the episode put new attention both on the Louisiana case at hand and the Republican push on the courts over all.

[Gondwanaland]

It's funny, those who complain about the Right's rhetoric always fall silent when something like the MTG Swatting or Kavanaugh Assassination attempt happen.

I noted the same thing in another thread about a number those here on the Right who complained about the Kavanaugh assassination attempt and doxxing of the justices, many of whom were real quiet (or even tried to deny it happened *coughRTTcough*) about the doxxing of the Judge involved with the Mar a Lago warrant and the two agents who Trump and his cultists doxxed who signed his copy of the warrant, when he leaked it without redaction of the names.

I'll not hold the left or the right to their own standards. I'll hold them to my standard, which is actually consistent, while theirs, on both sides tends to only work based on who it's happening to (silence when it's a political enemy, and vociferous complaining and condemnation when it's a political friend)

Interestingly, a little snooping on the author of the article doesn't turn up any condemnation of that doxxing or threatening of FBI personnel (or the attack on one office).... so sounds like he could take a page from his own book as well.

[CivilDiscourse]

Seems that certain posters, of the leftward bent are quiet:

[rogue06]

Source: Left’s political violence tied to dangerous Democrat rhetoric

Top Democrats including Biden, Schumer and Pelosi have all encouraged violent leftists



This week, a man from California was arrested outside Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home and charged with attempted murder. He had a gun, a knife, pepper spray, and tools to break into the home — he freely admitted that he was there to kill Kavanaugh. Thanks to brave police officers, the threat was taken care of. But the situation never should have happened in the first place. Unfortunately, this attempted assassination can be traced directly to a longstanding pattern of violent rhetoric from Democrat officials.

Think back to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s incendiary comments about the Supreme Court in 2020. Speaking to a crowd of enraged activists, Schumer poured gasoline on the fire, shouting that Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh would "pay the price" for refusing to rule the way liberals wanted. "You won’t know what hit you," Schumer raged, in a stunning example of a high-ranking political leader openly threatening members of another branch of government. Similarly, Speaker Nancy Pelosi praised left-wing activists for channeling "their righteous anger into meaningful action." Joe Biden condoned this rhetoric by refusing to condemn it, illustrating that he’s comfortable with calls to violence from his party’s leadership.

This week, a deranged left-winger came dangerously close to following Schumer’s orders. And it comes in the wake of House Democrats refusing to pass legislation to expand security protection for Supreme Court justices and their families. They know that violence may continue to occur, but don’t want to take tangible steps to stop it. Why? Elected Democrats may not be committing violence themselves, but they are creating an environment that makes it likely to occur.

This is a widespread pattern. Just a few weeks ago, when asked if he condoned protests at the homes of justices, Schumer answered "yes." When asked a similar question, former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki refused to condemn the threatening protests, saying "I know that there’s an outrage right now." She was speaking for Joe Biden and refusing to defuse an obviously dangerous situation. Pelosi also dodged the question and refused to condemn the protests – but then again, this is the same person who suggested there should be "uprisings all over the country" in 2018 because she disagreed with President Donald Trump’s immigration policy.

It’s stunning to write this, but let’s be very clear: showing up at someone’s private residence to harass and intimidate them into carrying out your political agenda is unacceptable. Violent rioting is unacceptable. Political violence is unacceptable.

Democrats’ comfort with violent rhetoric and conduct should disappoint you, but it shouldn’t surprise you. Think back further. Remember in 2019 when Rep. Maxine Waters instructed a crowd of angry activists to harass members of the Trump administration if they saw them in person? How about when a crowd of protestors attacked Senator Rand Paul and his wife as he walked the streets of Washington, DC in 2020? Or in 2017, when a Bernie Sanders devotee shot and almost killed Rep. Steve Scalise – along with four others – having been driven to commit unspeakable violence by angry, divisive far-left propaganda?

Every American remembers the devastating riots that took place in the spring and summer of 2020. However, Democrats would like you to forget the role they played in stoking the fires of resentment that led to billions in damage and dozens of deaths. Then-candidate Kamala Harris said that the riots "are not gonna stop…and they should not," shortly before promoting a bail fund for violent rioters.

We all know that there’s a reason we don’t hear much about the left’s pattern of violence: their allies in the mainstream media carry water for them. Who could forget the infamous shot from CNN in which a reporter stood in front of a burning city with a headline describing riots as "fiery, but mostly peaceful?" Just imagine the media coverage if a gunman had shown up at a liberal justice’s house instead of Justice Kavanaugh.

Nothing can conceal the truth: today’s Democrat party is more than comfortable condoning, encouraging, and demanding violence to achieve its political aims. The American people understand this radicalism for what it is — and they won’t forget it come November.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

Not "current" but does a good job listing some of the incidents where liberal leaders tolerated if not encouraged violence.

It does leave out how old Joe has said on more than one occasion how much he wants to physically attack and harm Trump, while the latter was still president.

And forget about Rand Paul being harassed on the street. How about being attacked in his own back yard by a crazed liberal who ambushed him as he mowed the grass, resulting in damage severe enough that part of one of his lung had to be removed.

And while mentioning their encouraging protesting against SCOTUS judges, it leaves off that this is illegal. A direct violation of federal law that prohibits intimidating judges. All of which does not matter to old Joe's Attorney General Merrick Garland who still ignores the law and gives his seal of approval to this blatantly illegal activity even after the attempted assassination of Kavanaugh.

I guess he's wanting to give them another shot at it (pun intended) hoping that the next person is a bit more competent.

[Maranatha]

Seems that certain posters, of the leftward bent are quiet:

Guard, turn, parry, dodge, spin, thrust!

Leftist input is overrated.

"Nu uh, jan6 we all almost died!"

I guess it's good for some laughs.

[rogue06]

Guard, turn, parry, dodge, spin, thrust!

Leftist input is overrated.

"Nu uh, jan6 we all almost died!"

I guess it's good for some laughs.

C'monman! Here's the deal. Not only did old Joe liken J6 to the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, his VP, the Cackler, said it was as bad as Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Get with the program

[Maranatha]

C'monman! Here's the deal. Not only did old Joe liken J6 to the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, his VP, the Cackler, said it was as bad as Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Get with the program

I was going to say that if one single republican gets elected this fall then democracy will fall, chickens will run wild, mad max will pull you over for not speeding. Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and the trump zombie apocalypse all rolled into one can't fully compare to Cortez crying.

I will wait here for the post democracy era.

[rogue06]

I was going to say that if one single republican gets elected this fall then democracy will fall, chickens will run wild, mad max will pull you over for not speeding. Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and the trump zombie apocalypse all rolled into one can't fully compare to Cortez crying.

I will wait here for the post democracy era.

[Maranatha]

There's always a Trumpian battle cruiser or Trumpian death ray or intergalactic COVID plague pointing at democracy.

We can stop it by turning princess Cortez and Bernie over to Cuba for immigration.

[CivilDiscourse]

I was just about to make that quote......but I see you beat me to it. Darn you Walter Peck.

[rogue06]

I was just about to make that quote......but I see you beat me to it. Darn you Walter Peck.

ghostbusters-is-it-true.gif

[CivilDiscourse]

ghostbusters-is-it-true.gif

It is. I do have empathy for your lack of a certain body part.

[Stoic]

And while mentioning their encouraging protesting against SCOTUS judges, it leaves off that this is illegal. A direct violation of federal law that prohibits intimidating judges. All of which does not matter to old Joe's Attorney General Merrick Garland who still ignores the law and gives his seal of approval to this blatantly illegal activity even after the attempted assassination of Kavanaugh..

Actually, peacefully protesting near the home of a supreme court justice about a decision that has already been made is not illegal.

https://abovethelaw.com/2022/07/no-1...over-abortion/

[rogue06]

Actually, peacefully protesting near the home of a supreme court justice about a decision that has already been made is not illegal.

https://abovethelaw.com/2022/07/no-1...over-abortion/

It hadn't been made when they started. Their entire purpose was to try to get a judge to change their mind.