Freedom2, it’s ALL “just claims.”
First you want a cite, then you want a certain type of cite.
Like arguing with my father. He demands proof, then he says the proof is biased.
Whatever.
tclouie – the bottom line is that for everyone (on either side) who claims to be protesting peacefully and non-violently there is at least one other person who is more than happy to take it to the street.
In the 60s, there was a group of anti-war protesters who had no qualms about throwing rocks or even blowing up the occasional building. However, they learned many of their tactics from a group of Southerners who were opposed to the Civil Rights Movement.
During the Depression, hired goons broke up labor protests. But 20 years earlier, anarchists were using labor protests as a cover for their own violence.
There is always a small group of “anarchists,” “agit-props,” “infiltrators,” etc. who don’t particularly care about the issue, but are willing to stir up trouble for their own reasons.
I’ve seen politcal fights, I’ve seen labor union fights, I’ve seen racial fights, I’ve seen fights after football games. I don’t believe one side is more likely to get violent than the other.
Maybe because a lot of the groups that appear to be “oriented toward violence” are on the right wing? For example: the NRA, the military-industrial establishment (to be vague), the Klan, militias.
Or because so many right wing heroes seem to have specialized in the study and application of violence? For example: John Wayne, Vince Lombardi, MacArthur, Teddy Roosevelt.
Or because so many right wing metaphors seem to revolve around the use of organized force? The big two, of course, being football and war.
Or because so many right wing sayings imply violence? For example: “Better dead than red”, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian”, “Gun control is hitting your target”, “They’ll get my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers”.
You will have to leave your father issues at home. I specified what I wanted in my original request.
Excellent points all, Tominator! Keenly observed!
Perhaps part of the problem is the fundamental nature of conservatism itself?
Consider: under the most basic (not political) definition of “conservative” is the reluctance/resistance to change. E.g., being conservative means wanting to maintain the status quo.
Then, to paraphrase Yoda, resistance to change leads to intolerance. Intolerance leads to anger. Anger leads to … well, when you factor in Tominator2’s observation that conservatives and violent groups are often closely aligned, the conclusion is rather apparent.
-
I think it is likely that both sides are likely to produce extremists. I think that for the past 20-30 years, the American right wing has produced more extremists because, particularly on social issues, the right wing has lost more ground. It’s the right wing, not the left, that can get violent over abortion because the left wing now has (essentially) abortion on demand. It’s the right wing, not the left, that can get violent over gun control because the nation is trending towards limitation of gun rights. Etc., etc. Right-wing extremists are more likely to see themselves right now as disenfranchised. Since the system didn’t work for them, they feel more justified in going outside the system (i.e. using violence).
-
The issues of concern to right-wing extremists these days tend towards more social and lifestyle issues than those concerning left-wing extremists. As such, they tend to concern moral choices and issues that directly impact the right-wing extremists, making violence seem much more appropriate. Add to this religion. The (distorted) religious views of some right-wing extremists on issues like abortion allow them to see violence as not only acceptable, but mandated. In contrast, the on the left wing, religion, while certainly not extinct, has lessened in importance.
So I would say that, right now, there is more violence on the right-wing side than on the left-wing side. Looking back at American history, this certainly hasn’t always been the case, nor is it likely to remain the case.
This doesn’t absolve the right wing completely. As I’m sure was the case amongst the left-wingers during their days of rage, too often mainstream right wing leaders are loathe to effectively condemn extremist violence. In fact, witness people like Rep. DeLay, mainstream right wing leaders are too quick to make inflammatory statements that provide justification for violence.
Sua
Considering that in the past year we’ve seen riots or near-riots by left-leaning types at the WTO meetings, the IMF/World Bank meetings, and the Republican National Convention (and nearly the DNC, too), I find it hard to believe this question is even being asked. And Greenpeace, the ALF and Earth First! are as capable of being violent as any right-wing group, although their crimes tend to be crimes or property.
kind of to build on what ** rjung ** said, i think conservatives depend on angry rhetoric for unity. they hate that which is a threat to their privilege–usually people who aren’t like them.
left-wingers have anger too but it seems to be more directed toward the system. in its ridiculous forms, we have conspiracy theories and Illluminati bogeymen. but i think it’s a little safer than hate directed toward people.
i always found it ironic that the PM of Israel was assassinated not by Palestinian terrorists, but by an extreme rightist.
and since when is destruction of property considered violence? how cynical is that concept?
Oh, since about the 14th century or so. :rolleyes:
Please note the very first definition given by Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: vi·o·lence
Pronunciation: 'vI-l&n(t)s, 'vI-&-
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in effecting illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure
2 : injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : OUTRAGE
3 a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force <the violence of the storm> b : vehement feeling or expression : FERVOR; also : an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or jarring quality : DISCORDANCE
4 : undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)
Similarly, “violent” is defined:
Main Entry: vi·o·lent
Pronunciation: -l&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin violentus; akin to Latin vis strength – more at VIM
Date: 14th century
1 : marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity <a violent attack>
2 a : notably furious or vehement <a violent denunciation> b : EXTREME, INTENSE <violent pain> <violent colors>
3 : caused by force : not natural <a violent death>
4 a : emotionally agitated to the point of loss of self-control <a mental patient becoming violent> b : prone to commit acts of violence <violent prison inmates>
- vi·o·lent·ly adverb
It just means “forceful.” It doesn’t imply a human ( or living) target. Violent crimes against people are assault, battery, manslaughter or murder. Violent crimes against property are vandalism and arson.
To illuminate the point a little more clearly for those who have difficulty making logical connections: Had the Federal Building in Oklahoma City been completely empty at the time Timothy McVeigh parked his truck in front of it, I doubt that any reasonable person would have considered the ensuing result to be a nonviolent event.
Another “left-leaning” organization that espouses violence when that suits its purpose - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). And somehow Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber) doesn’t neatly fit into the category of the reasonable, turn-the-other-cheek extreme leftist.
The right wing gets identified with violence in part due to the activities of extremists who mix politics with religious zealotry (i.e. certain anti-abortion rights activists and the self-immolators at Waco, who are difficult to characterize solely as conservatives), and fringe survivalists whose opinions are so far to the right they are sometimes indistinguishable from those of the extreme left.
Rightists have no monopoly on violence, nor on smugness or hypocrisy.
First, American politics are extremely polarised, with excessive demonising of both sides from the extremes.
Secondly, mobs are very excitable.
Not just that. The Objectivists (i.e. Moderates, Centrists, etc.) are demonized as well, but only when they happen to disagree on an issue. It’s become far easier to tear someone down than to build oneself up… unfortunately. 'Cuz now we’re all left with nothing but the lowest common denominator.
Indeed. People are stupid, and the more people there is, the stupider they be. And people wonder why I embrace noncomformity…
Tominator 2 -
Part 1 - Groups
NRA - Working for gun safety and support of law enforcement for 120 years.
Militias - Name one act of violence commited by a militia member.
Military-Industrial Complex - Would this be the the same military-industrial complex that Eisenhower advised us to avoid and Kennedy embraced with open arms?
Klan - Do you mean the same Clan which thrived in the Jim Crow Democratic South?
Part 2 - Heroes
Teddy Roosevelt received the Nobel Peace Prize for organizing a Peace Conference. FDR worked to get the country into a European war.
MacArthur wanted to do whatever it took to get us out of a war which Harry S Truman got us into.
Contrast these with left wing heroes:
Mao (50 million dead)
Stalin (25 million dead}
Pol Pot ( 1 million dead)
Jim Jones (? dead)
Part 3 - Metaphors
Football and war are right wing? Convince me.
Part 4 - Slogans
You’ll have to convince me about the “dead Indian” slogan being right wing. This was Progressive Party and William Jennings Bryan territory we’re talking about.
Contrast with - “Take it to the Streets” and “By any means necessary”.
Do you really want to go there? Do you honestly believe that the American left wing looks upon these people are heros? That’s just absurd. If you want to play that game, the response is
Hitler
Pinochet
Idi Amin
The Argentinian Junta
Hirohito
I don’t believe these are “heroes” to the right wing. Please tell me you were joking.
Sua
I can’t answer everything in detail, but here goes:
See http://www.militia-watchdog.org/shootout.htm or http://www.splcenter.org/cgi-bin/goframe.pl?refname=/intelligenceproject/ip-4m1.html (Nov 9, 1995). I don’t want to get into a militia thread. Suffice it to say that both militias and the NRA are heavily-armed and confrontational about it. Not very calming.
So did Gustav Streseman. The Colombians (and all of Latin America) would probably beg to differ. As far as FDR, he was continuing (wisely, imho) a policy of favoring English and French interests over the Germans that Teddy has started at the Algericas conference.
The mil/ind is left wing? Does Ted Kennedy know this? Does Ollie North?
Teddy Roosevelt reformed what? Reagan was known affectionately as what? Who played what? Football has been called the “100 yard” what? A quote from Desert Storm: Army Chief Warrant Officer Ron Moring stated on the eve of the war: “It’s time to quit the pregame show.” http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~corse/gulf.html. OK, I was reaching a little with the “dead Indian” quote, but it plays into another right wing: metaphor - cowboys, Indians, and the taming of the West.
Sua Sponte -
Not joking, just using hyperbole to try and make a point; that both sides are saddled with “heroes” who have feet of blood. All of the people on my list were left-wing heroes at one time and all of them, especially Mao, still have their defenders today among the more extreme.
(I would put Hitler on the left-wing, but I realize it’s a moot point. I have no idea where to put Idi Amin. On the other hand I would list Jean Paul Marat as right-wing and you don’t get much blood thirstier than that.)
Tominator 2 -
My point is that we can both make lists, I wouldn’t call the NRA confrontational, I would call the anti-gun people confrontational (see Million Mom Marcch etc); Teddy Kennedy is listed by the Institute for Policy Studies as one of the “top Congressional recipients of campaign contributions from major defense contractors” (as are many others, both Democratic and Republican); Teddy Roosevelt reformed the child labor laws, Reagan was known as “Dutch” and Jack Kennedy got a lot of good press playing touch football.
(I honestly don’t understand your football/war metaphor; yes, war is frequently used as a metaphor for football, but how do you define either as right-wing?)(I’m not even going to go near why cowboys and Indians would be right-wing)
A really great book for perspective on this is “Blood of Spain” about the Spanish Civil War. The country broke up into multiple factions from far far right to far far left and every faction produced both villains and heroes. It also illustrates that it is not always easy to say whether someone is on the right or the left.
I raised exactly this same issue once before, which led to an equally interesting debate.
I don’t think I ever said that liberals and mild socialists NEVER get violent. I said that they’re GENERALLY less violent than right-wingers.
pldennison: the only “near-riot” at the DNC was caused by the cops, firing rubber bullets into people’s backs and assaulting journalists. I was on the scene shortly before that, and the scary leftists were the peaceful ones.
A lifetime’s experience has taught me that the right wing is quicker (and usually first) to resort to physical force and intimidation.
Our 43rd President was definitely given to us by an orchestrated mob of shouting, shoving, punching, kicking, out-of-state paid Republican staffers who were given free rein over the Miami-Dade county building. (See especially the second page, fifth paragraph) http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/28/miami/index.html
Freedom2 says “Why no charges pressed?” Who knows? Not all crimes get prosecuted. Some did call for a Federal investigation. http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/24/deutsch/
But here’s a possible reason why there’s no videotape of the worst of it:
http://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20001218&s=schell
(Fifth paragraph: “Television cameramen were punched.”)
And by the way, why did conservative Wall Street Journal editorialist Paul Gigot call the Miami-Dade incident a “bourgeois riot” if it wasn’t violent? What’s the definition of “riot” anyway ?
(Source: WSJ 11/24/00 – sorry, no link, it’s a subscriber-only site – also ref’d in
http://www.msnbc.com/news/494375.asp )