A year ago, Senator Rand Paul tweeted “Why do we have a Second Amendment? It’s not to shoot deer. It’s to shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical!”
Yesterday, someone listened to that advice and shot 3 GOP Congressmen at a baseball game. The man was outspokenly liberal and recently said "“Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.”
As a country founded on a violent insurrection, kept together through another, and responsible for indirectly inspiring and directly causing several more violent insurrections in other countries, the idea of political violence is an inescapable part of our history, and perhaps an inescapable if shameful part of our ethos.
That it happens is not really a debate. But should it? Is political violence to be condemned forever, under all circumstances? Or should be it a last resort, when all peaceful measures have failed? Is it a civic duty, an act of treason, simple terrorism, none of the above?
This is a subject that is going to be difficult to discuss and quantify.
I will be surprised if anyone tries to argue that violence is never, under any circumstances, a reasonable response. On second thought, I’ll be surprised if they have a good argument for that position; that is more what I meant.
I do not think it is morally worse to use lethal violence than to allow tyranny. So if I thought violent revolution could improve upon current political circumstances, I’m not morally opposed to engaging in it. But I don’t, in fact, think it is practical to attempt to improve upon our current level of democracy using the intrinsically undemocratic modality of coercive violence.
It may be appropriate, it might conceivably be necessary (and, if so, I hope also sufficient), but mostly I think it is overwhelmingly impractical and counterproductive.
This is similar to the “Terrorism is sometimes justified” thread we had last week.
Political violence is sometimes justified, yes, if indeed no other method of petition, influence or recourse is permitted, or has any meaningful effect.
The problem is, some unsavory characters/causes, of course, will use that to justify their terrorism.
There were 17 million deaths in World War I. The trigger for the war was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, by Yugoslav nationalist Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914. It’s very hard to say this assassination was appropriate or necessary.
Violence should be nearly the last resort - making it the actual last resort just means that when violence does occur, it’ll be at a time and place of your opponent’s choosing (i.e. you are never going to use violence first), likely when it is most effective for him and most disadvantageous to you. The better strategy is to resolve to use violence only when necessary while reserving the right to define what “necessary” is, and thus leaving it vague and somewhat unpredictable.
Another problem with political violence is that unleashes cycles of reprisal that kill many innocent people. As long as we have elections, there is no excuse for violence.
Thats the appeal of democracy and the rule of law. People can bring down and replace a government without having to use violence.
Several decades ago when people wanted leftist governments in Latin America, the only way to do so was to engage in insurrections. Once those nations went democratic, then people could just vote those governments into power. If they didn’t fulfill their promises, people could just vote them out.
In places like Venezuela, the government has abandoned democracy in favor of authoritarianism, and now people are engaging in violence because the democratic traditions don’t work anymore.
We still have a free press. We have an independent judiciary. (And the press and the judiciary have been giving Trump a fair amount of hell.) We have freedom of speech and freedom of peaceable assembly; no one is rounding up those who speak out against Trump or violently suppressing marches and protests. I have been very disappointed at the results of some of the (post-Trump) elections (like Gianforte in Montana), but I haven’t seen anything to suggest that the votes aren’t being counted fairly or that elections have ceased to have any meaning. Right now there is a special prosecutor hot on Trump’s tail.
I won’t pretend to be undismayed at the state of American democracy, in a way that’s way, way beyond the normal “Dammit, our guy [gal] lost!” But political violence is not appropriate or necessary as long as there is still the rule of law and the possibility of taking down those who need to be taken down by legal action; as long as there is still democracy and the possibility of taking down those who need to be taken down at the ballot box; as long as there is still civil society and the possibility of taking down those who need to be taken down by peaceful protests and free speech.
If there is only violence from those in power–if there’s no possibility of securing justice by law or democracy or peaceful civil action because the law has been violently subverted, because democracy has been violently eliminated, and because peaceful protest is violently suppressed, then violence in return would be necessary and appropriate.
As bad as Trump is we are nowhere near to the conditions where any sort of violent revolution is in any way justified or appropriate.
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson
People who insist that violence is a tool of last resort are fools. Violence is the most powerful tool for change available. Violence, in the end, resolves more issues than any other. Violence not only stops those who fight with words, but it stops their replacements from taking their place out of fear of that violence visiting them. It is always an appropriate tool if your goal is to affect change.
When is political violence appropriate? When is it necessary?
I would say only when the people as a whole have decided, and made know through the representatives that still serve them That the Government has ceased to serve it’s intended purpose and is requested to step down and relinquish power so that it may be reformed in a manner that serves it’s original and intended purpose…
…And the Government refuses.
Until then you do not assassinate government representatives, we have systems in place to deal with normal problems. @Crazy Canuck
That is not remotely what Mr Jefferson meant