A BIPARTISAN SAMPLING of the world’s greatest perpetrators and enablers of political violence has rushed to condemn political violence following the shooting attempt on former President Donald Trump on Saturday.
“The idea that there’s political violence … in America like this, is just unheard of, it’s just not appropriate,” said President Joe Biden, the backer of Israel’s genocidal war against Palestine, with a death toll that researchers believe could reach 186,000 Palestinians. Biden’s narrower point was correct, though: Deadly attacks on the American ruling class are vanishingly rare these days. Political violence that is not “like this” — the political violence of organized abandonment, poverty, militarized borders, police brutality, incarceration, and deportation — is commonplace.
And condemn it, most everyone in the Democratic political establishment has: “Political violence is absolutely unacceptable,” wrote Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., on X. “There is absolutely no place for political violence in our democracy,” tweeted former President Barack Obama, who oversaw war efforts and military strikes against Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan with massive civilian death tolls; Obama added that we should “use this moment to recommit ourselves to civility and respect in our politics.” “There is no place for political violence, including the horrific incident we just witnessed in Pennsylvania,” wrote Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.
The chorus of condemnation was predictable and not in itself a problem: There’s nothing wrong with desiring a world without stochastic assassination attempts, even against political opponents. But when you have Israel’s minister of foreign affairs, Israel Katz of the fascistic ruling Likud Party, tweeting, “Violence can never ever be part of politics,” the very concept of “political violence” is evacuated of meaning.
It’s unheard of
So you’ve never picked up a history book, I see. There’s a few obscure guys who would disagree with your assertion. I’ll list them off, but I doubt you’ll recognize any of the names.
- Andrew Jackson
- Abraham Lincoln
- James Garfield
- Theodore Roosevelt
- William McKinley
- John F. Kennedy
- Ronald Reagan
- William Taft
- Herbert Hoover
- Franklin D. Roosevelt
- Harry Truman
- Gerald Ford
- George W. Bush
- Barack Obama
Don’t feel bad, I wouldn’t expect you to have heard of any of them.
You forgot a couple of senators including JFKs younger brother. But yeah, super obscure names, Im suprised someone else online knows about these.
It’s funny to see how Republicans have been “we don’t condone violence” and “this is unacceptable”.
Go look at their reactions to the attack on Paul Pelosi. You know, the celebrations, the “Democrats had it coming”. Funny how things change
There were Republicans decrying the attack on Pelosi. Of course there were people saying stuff like “Democrats had it coming,” just like we have people saying “How could you miss” about this.
The ‘monopoly of violence’ is a useful lens to use around things like this. Despite being less accountable than normal citizens for it, the state has monopolized violence to be acceptable for them to commit, but unacceptable for others.
The state will even often times will use violence to arrest or put down non violent situations or people as well. Like the student protestors, George Floyd and any number of other police killings we’ve seen.
Yes, this is by design and it’s a good thing. That’s what the state is for.
People are losing the plot around here.
I disagree. This particular state continues to give itself more authority without more accountability. Allow that to continue and you won’t have a state left either, well not a free one anyway.
Also studies about America’s Political system continue to show most people don’t really have a say in what happens at the federal level. You got swing states and thats it.
How long can a society remain free when the monopoly on voilence is given based on a minority of voters?
You’re changing the subject, though. The state having the monopoly on violence is a trait of civil societies in general. You can break a liberal democracy in many, many ways entirely unrelated to that issue, which is ultimately just that individual citizens aren’t allowed to enact their will through violent acts and instead must appeal to the state for restitution when they are wronged.
The US’s issues aren’t that the government doesn’t allow its private citizens to legally act violently (the exact opposite is a problem in the US, in fact), and having a monopoly on violence doesn’t bear one way or the other on whether a country’s international policy is compliant with international law.
Words mean things.
Never said that was the problem. Said it was a good lens to use. Makes a lot of people look real hypocritical. The disagreement was about the US’s monopoly on violence in particular being a good thing. Do anyones cops kill more civilians per capita than US cops? Because we know no one imprisons more people per capita. We have a lot of violence given electoral mandate by the minority. That’s the problem, and that in itself even threatens the monopoly as those in the majority going unheard realize they don’t have a lot of options. A riot is the language of the unheard. Similar effect.
No, the notion that
Despite being less accountable than normal citizens for it, the state has monopolized violence to be acceptable for them to commit, but unacceptable for others
is no more true in the US than Finland or France. All modern countries legally prevent their citizens from taking violent action. This is normal. It’s intended, it’s a good thing.
The problem is with accountability for the agents of the state, which has nothing to do with the monopoly on violence, it has to do with the criminal system and how the use of that violence is controlled.
If you say the monopoly on violence is the issue with the US’s police violence issue what you’re saying isn’t that the police should be controlled better in their deployment of force, you’re saying that individuals should be able to shoot back at the police or, in fact, at anybody else they don’t like.
Which is clearly already way too frequent in the US. The interpretation of exceptions to enable private violence, be it the right to bear arms or the insane “stand your ground” rules and other expansive interpretations of legitimate defense are part of the problem. The state’s monopoly on violence in the US is too lax, not too strict. Which is mostly unrelated with the fact that the state deploys violence unjustly or without enough accountability or limitation.
Those are different things. I don’t think you mean what your statement is implying, I think you mean the other thing, but that’s what you’re saying and you can probably see how that’s a problem.
If you say the monopoly on violence is the issue with the US’s police violence issue what you’re saying isn’t that the police should be controlled better in their deployment of force, you’re saying that individuals should be able to shoot back at the police or, in fact, at anybody else they don’t like.
I’m saying in theory the monopoly of violence is given mandate through elections, and in the US those winning elections do not always do so by being the most popular. It’s an issue that goes higher than the police as the monopoly is transferred to those without an actual majority of support. The President is commander in chief of the executive branch, that includes the cops. The problems are coming from the top down. It’s considerably different than any of the other countries you mentioned.
You’re talking about democratic legitimacy, not about the monopoly on violence. Non democratic countries also have a monopoly on violence for the state, it has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the state to represent the will of the People.
If your argument is that the current electoral or political system in the US lacks legitimacy because it’s not representative enough I can agree with that. But the monopoly on violence by the state is the same with or without that issue, and the lack of legitimacy doesn’t change the fact that you don’t want random people being allowed to resolve their grievances violently.
You’re right and the down votes are reactionary. The alternative to the state having a monopoly on violence is even more violent parties. The benefit of a monopoly is violence resting with the state is that the violence is subjected to checks and balances. Perhaps those checks and balances aren’t as restrictive as we might like, but the alternative is unchecked violence.
Obviously we prefer no violence, and yes violence is abused by parties within the state. But that’s a separate issue. If we dismantled the monopoly, violence would skyrocket and what little regulation our institutions enforce would vanish. That’s objectively worse
The world is a nasty place, solutions being unsavory doesn’t preclude them being the best option.
I can’t believe you’re being downvoted for this. The only alternative to government monopoly on violence is that corporations and other citizens are free to interpret laws and use violence to enforce them. You really want Walmart running their own armed police squad? You want the kkk running their own legal military? You want your neighbour able to legally shoot you because they thought your tree was dropping leaves on their property?
It’s absurd that ANYONE would support broader adoption of legal violence. These people have lost their marbles.
The only kind they ALL oppose, apparently, is against Republicans. When it’s against Democrats the Republicans cheer.
Pretty much the entirety of mainstream political speech boils down to the Elites being special and what is good and proper for them is not the same as what is good and proper for the rest, both in terms of what they can do and what can be done to them.
And this is in all political regimes, Democracy as much as Autocracy.
So the only surprise there can be in this comes from generally in Democracy the “we are different from you” kind of speech tends to be far more subtle and indirect (say, justifying politicians exclusion from certain surveillance laws due to their “responsibilities” or having law apply differently to “businesses” which is just a way to act towards the wealth of the Owner class differently than towards that of the Worker class), so some people hadn’t yet spotted how throroughly normalized and generally applied the double standard of the Elites is.
For anybody trying to look at the forest rather than getting fixated on individual trees, this stuff is immediately obvious as absolutely within the general pattern of behaviour of these people (it’s the mainstream politicians that do NOT think like this that are the exceptional ones).
Only politicians are against violence against politicians
And regardless of what side of the aisle, they will all stand together on this. Why? Maybe because any one of them could be next.
We never had the guillotines in this country. So the ruling class never learned that part the hard way.
Exactly. Politicians serve the people. Or else.
The party that wants to execute pedophiles and rapists is shocked when Donald Trump, a known rapist of a 12 year old girl, almost gets shot
Finally a good take on this.
the very concept of “political violence” is evacuated of meaning
The author of this piece is the one doing that. Hint: it doesn’t mean everything he personally doesn’t approve of.
Are you saying that political violence that one approves of is not political violence?
No, I’m saying that not all violence is political violence. Things that aren’t even violent are definitely not political violence. The author’s definition of “political violence” appears to include any government action that he’s not happy with. (He reminds me of the “taxes are theft” libertarians.)
Their main example is Gaza and that violence is political. Hamas is a political party with support from Palestinians that Israel is trying to wipe out using violence. In fact most violence is political in that you are trying to get certain changes to the governing apparatus through action.
There’s a mao quote that goes something along the lines of politics is war without violence and war is politics with violence. They’re two sides of the same coin.
Woke games are making my violence too political these days.
This is obvious and, honestly, the arguments against it are so weak and rely on such a niche, deliberate misunderstanding of how… you know, reality works, that it’s probably not worth engaging with them. Especially not now. It’s still shocking to see it written down, though, at least until one remembers that people can just write whatever they want on social media.
I’ll give them this, though: the notion that political violence like this is “unheard of” in the US is absurd. It is shockingly frequent.
