ADVERTISEMENT

Opinion Don’t blame ‘both sides.’ The right is driving political violence.

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,362
58,790
113
By Max Boot

Columnist |
October 30, 2022 at 5:33 p.m. EDT


It should not be controversial to say that America has a major problem with right-wing political violence. The evidence continues to accumulate — yet the GOP continues to deny responsibility for this horrifying trend.

Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates

On Friday, a man enflamed by right-wing conspiracy theories (including QAnon) entered the San Francisco home of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and attacked her 82-year-old husband with a hammer, fracturing Paul Pelosi’s skull. “Where is Nancy?” he reportedly shouted, echoing the mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, at President Donald Trump’s instigation. This comes after years of Republican demonization of the House speaker, a figure of hatred for the right rivaled only by Hillary Clinton.

The same day as the Pelosi attack, a man pleaded guilty to making death threats against Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.). Two days earlier, three men who were motivated by right-wing, anti-lockdown hysteria after covid-19 hit were convicted of aiding a plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D). In August, another man died after attacking an FBI office because he was so upset about the bureau’s search of Mar-a-Lago. “We must respond with force,” he wrote on Trump’s Truth Social website.






Then there are all the terrible hate crimes, in cities including Pittsburgh, El Paso and Buffalo, where gunmen were motivated by the kind of racist rhetoric — especially the “great replacement theory” — now openly espoused on Fox “News.”


Follow Max Boot's opinionsFollow

This is where any fair-minded journalist has to offer an obligatory “to be sure” paragraph: To be sure, political violence is not confined to the right. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) was shot in 2017 by a gunman with leftist beliefs, and in June, a man was arrested for allegedly plotting to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh after becoming incensed about court rulings on abortion and guns.
Republican leaders cite those attacks to exonerate themselves of any responsibility for political violence. “Violence is up across the board,” Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said on Sunday, arguing that it’s “unfair” to blame anti-Pelosi rhetoric for the assault on Pelosi’s husband.



Violence is unacceptable whether from the left or right, period. But we can’t allow GOP leaders to get away with this false moral equivalency. They are evading their responsibility for their extremist rhetoric that all too often motivates extremist actions.
The New America think tank found last year that, since Sept. 11, 2001, far-right terrorists had killed 122 people in the United States, compared with only one killed by far-leftists. A study from the Center for Strategic and International Studies last year found that, since 2015, right-wing extremists had been involved in 267 plots or attacks, compared with 66 for left-wing extremists. A Washington Post-University of Maryland survey released in January found that 40 percent of Republicans said violence against the government can be justified, compared with only 23 percent of Democrats.
There is little doubt about what is driving political violence: the ascendance of Trump. The former president and his followers use violent rhetoric of extremes: Trump calls President Biden an “enemy of the state,” attacks the FBI as “monsters,” refers to the “now Communist USA” and even wrote that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has a “DEATH WISH” for disagreeing with him. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has expressed support for executing Nancy Pelosi and other leading Democrats. Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Tex.) has tweeted that “the America Last Marxists … are radically and systematically DESTROYING our country.”



That type of extremist rhetoric used to be confined to fringe organizations such as the John Birch Society. Now it’s the GOP mainstream, with predictable consequences. The U.S. Capitol Police report that threats against members of Congress have risen more than tenfold since Trump’s election in 2016, up to 9,625 last year.


 
The sickness on the right was on display after news broke about the attack on Paul Pelosi. While leading Republicans condemned the horrific assault, the MAGA base seethed with sick jokes making light of the violence and insane conspiracy theories. (Filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza suggested that the attack was “a romantic tryst that went awry.”)
Karen Tumulty: Glenn Youngkin's riff about the attack on Paul Pelosi is not just tasteless but dangerous
There was, alas, no sign of the GOP taking responsibility for fomenting hatred. Kari Lake, the GOP nominee for governor of Arizona, blamed “leftist elected officials who have not enforced the laws.” Naturally, Republicans accuse Democrats of being “divisive” for citing Republican rhetoric as a contributing factor to political violence.



It’s true that, by calling out GOP extremism, Democrats do risk exacerbating the polarization of politics. But they can’t simply ignore this dangerous trend. And it’s not Democrats who are pushing our country to the brink: A New York Times study found that MAGA members of Congress who refused to accept the results of the 2020 election used polarizing language at nearly triple the rate of Democrats.
So please don’t accept the GOP framing of the assault on Paul Pelosi as evidence of a problem plaguing “both sides of the aisle.” Political violence in America is being driven primarily by the far right, not the far left, and the far right is much closer to the mainstream of the Republican Party than the far left is to the Democratic Party.
 
By Jennifer Rubin

Columnist |
October 31, 2022 at 11:33 a.m. EDT


Political violence is not an unintended consequence of the MAGA movement. Much like Nike’s swoosh, it is at the center of the movement’s brand.
Remember this when considering the intruder who, hyped up on the conspiracy theories Republicans bandy about, reportedly broke into Nancy Pelosi’s home carrying zip ties. He then demanded to confront the House speaker and cracked her husband’s skull. Tellingly, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin joked about the horrifying incident, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) took his time before commenting on it.


Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates

How could something like this happen? Well, as The Post reports: “For a wide swath of Republicans, Pelosi is Enemy No. 1 — a target of the collective rage, conspiratorial thinking and overt misogyny that have marked the party’s hard-right turn in recent years. Among far-right extremist groups, the anti-Pelosi memes are often cruder and more violent, but the demonization of the Democratic House leader is no fringe phenomenon. Her face — sometimes adorned with devil’s horns or a swastika — was plastered on signs at all the national rallies that led up to the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol.”



Indeed, the GOP has made it standard practice to demonize Democratic women. This includes Pelosi, of course, but also Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) and Hillary Clinton. And don’t forget Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, whom Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee accused of coddling child molesters during her confirmation hearings.



The party has also spent years normalizing violence and violent rhetoric. Donald Trump, during his 2016 campaign rallies, suggested that attendees attack protesters and intimated that gun owners could take out Hillary Clinton. The phenomenon worsened during his presidency, including when he declared that there were “very fine people” on the side of the neo-Nazis during the violent white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville. And it culminated on Jan. 6, 2021, when Trump incited a mob to disrupt the counting of electoral votes at the U.S. Capitol and egged the rioters on as they closed in on the vice president.
Since then, a raft of Republican candidates aping Trump’s bravado has appeared in campaign ads with weapons of war. One ad for Missouri Senate candidate Eric Greitens featured the former governor busting into a home to go “RINO hunting.” More recently, another Republican, Rep. Tom Emmer (Minn.), the chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee, tweeted a video of him firing a gun along with the words “Enjoyed exercising my Second Amendment rights” and "#FirePelosi.” (CBS News’s Margaret Brennan brilliantly raked Emmer over the coals for the tweet on Sunday.)






This is par for the course for right-wing movements, which for decades have adopted violence as a key instrument in their quest for power. As author Jay Griffiths writes for Aeon:
Fascism is hostile to egalitarianism and loathes liberalism. It champions ‘might is right’, a Darwinian survival of the nastiest, and detests vulnerability: the sight of weakness brings out the jackboot in the fascist mind, which then blames the victim for encouraging the kick. Fascism not only promotes violence but relishes it, viscerally so. It cherishes audacity, bravado and superbia, promotes charismatic leaders, demagogues and ‘strong men’, and seeks to flood or control the media. Even as it pretends to speak for the people, it creates the rule of the elite, a cult of violent chauvinism and a nationalism that serves racism.
Violence is not simply an unintended aspect of these movements; they are part and parcel of them. For example, Trump and others in his party have threatened violence if Trump were indicted. They have analogized FBI agents serving a lawful search warrant to Nazi shock troops. The result? A crazed individual attacked an FBI office in Ohio.
This is a classic fascist tactic. When the MAGA movement turns someone such as Kyle Rittenhouse, who killed two and injured another during protests following a police shooting in Kenosha, Wis., into a folk hero, Republicans hold out the promise of fame to those who follow violent cues. And when participants in the Jan. 6 riot appear on the ballot (e.g., Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano), the GOP takes one more step to solidify its reverence for strongmen.



Violence has become the norm for the MAGA crowd. The House Jan. 6 select committee presented voluminous evidence of violent threats directed at election workers. MAGA-inspired protesters have also shown up at school boards and other local government meetings to threaten public employees. These people are taking signals from MAGA leaders.
Americans should recognize that only one party has instrumentalized this sort of violence. The leftist who opened fire during a practice session for the annual Congressional Baseball Game was not incited by violent rhetoric among Democrats. And when a man attacked New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Lee Zeldin, no Democratic officeholder cracked jokes about it. Instead, President Biden and other party leaders have swiftly and unequivocally condemned each act of violence regardless of the victim’s party, because violence is anathema to democracy.
By contrast, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has supported executing her opponents, including Pelosi. Right-wing media has mocked and denigrated officers injured while defending the Capitol. McCarthy “joked” about using the House gavel to pummel Pelosi. And Rep. Paul A. Gosar (R-Ariz.) shared an animation on Twitter portraying violence against Democrats. His party defended him.
Such rhetoric and images would never be used by the Democratic Party. Voters horrified by increasingly common political violence should consider if they really want promoters of such behavior in office, where they will have bigger platforms.

 
Who did she attempt to murder here? I think this was really stupid of her, however. Yet again, this is not equivalent to the never attending attacks on Nancy Pelosi that got someone to enter her house. Or the loons on 1/6 who were looking for her in the Capitol. I suppose you think they were just going to have a polite conversation with her if they found her. Both sides!!!
 
Both times they briefly pass over actions of the left it's immediately followed by a but and a justification.


No.
Justification? Huh. Seems you are doing the EXACT thing, here.

Interesting that you believe your linked example of “left wing violence” is not covered by the stats. Care to explain?

Regardless of what you may or may not come up with as explanation, the bottom line appears to remain the same. Unless the stats in the article are invalid, the article pretty fairly summarizes the differences and distinctions involved.

But, you know, go team?
 
Justification? Huh. Seems you are doing the EXACT thing, here.

Interesting that you believe your linked example of “left wing violence” is not covered by the stats. Care to explain?

Regardless of what you may or may not come up with as explanation, the bottom line appears to remain the same. Unless the stats in the article are invalid, the article pretty fairly summarizes the differences and distinctions involved.

But, you know, go team?
Justification and pointing out hypocrisy are two different things.







Red wings?
 
Justification and pointing out hypocrisy are two different things.







Red wings?
Hypocrisy?

Seems like you’re finding ways to gloss over the stats, avoid addressing them, which can just-as-easily-as-you’re-doing-now be considered as both “justification” as well as “hypocrisy”.

I’ll ask again. Your linked example of left wing violence — is this covered in the stats, or not?

Not sure why this is hard for you to answer.
 
Hypocrisy?

Seems like you’re finding ways to gloss over the stats, avoid addressing them, which can just-as-easily-as-you’re-doing-now be considered as both “justification” as well as “hypocrisy”.

I’ll ask again. Your linked example of left wing violence — is this covered in the stats, or not?

Not sure why this is hard for you to answer.
You seriously think the left has done 66 attacks? Did the 100 night's in Portland only count as 1?


No, I don't think those numbers are accurate and would love to look at the methodology.
 
You seriously think the left has done 66 attacks? Did the 100 night's in Portland only count as 1?


No, I don't think those numbers are accurate and would love to look at the methodology.
So defensive. Okay, now we’re getting somewhere.

Do you think there is something close to moral equivalence as it relates to the issue being discussed?

Also, since we’re discussing violence, please try to avoid violating the apostrophe.

Thanks.
 
So defensive. Okay, now we’re getting somewhere.

Do you think there is something close to moral equivalence as it relates to the issue being discussed?

Also, since we’re discussing violence, please try to avoid violating the apostrophe.

Thanks.
"defensive" eyeroll. Shits weak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCHawk5
"defensive" eyeroll. Shits weak.
Lol. You can’t even acknowledge the defensiveness of your response. Petty snowflakey.

So you take issue with the stats, skeptical as to how they were assembled. Fine. No problem with that.

This is why I asked the follow-up question, which has to this point been avoided.

With what looks like another defensive response, at least to me.
 
Equivalent to what? The underwear photo? I thought you were here for the LOLz take the vibrating hammer out of your ass and have a laugh.
Equivalent to a fairly big voice in GOP world, DJT Jr, posting stuff like that. Is there someone on the left who openly mocks politically-motivated violence and/or victims of such violence? You seem to be keeping some type of score, given your initial reaction to the OP op ed piece.

Maybe there is. I don’t know. Maybe a lefty media personality or some actor or musician posts similarly?

Again, this is the role you introduced yourself into with your first post in this thread, so I’m genuinely asking you, as scorekeeper, to, you know, keep score.

Thanks.
 
Lol. You can’t even acknowledge the defensiveness of your response. Petty snowflakey.

So you take issue with the stats, skeptical as to how they were assembled. Fine. No problem with that.

This is why I asked the follow-up question, which has to this point been avoided.

With what looks like another defensive response, at least to me.
I'm not defensive in any way, you m8ght want to consider how much of that is you putting your feelings or beliefs into thr conversation.




I don't mean to be avoiding anything, what are we looking at?
 
Equivalent to a fairly big voice in GOP world, DJT Jr, posting stuff like that. Is there someone on the left who openly mocks politically-motivated violence and/or victims of such violence? You seem to be keeping some type of score, given your initial reaction to the OP op ed piece.

Maybe there is. I don’t know. Maybe a lefty media personality or some actor or musician posts similarly?

Again, this is the role you introduced yourself into with your first post in this thread, so I’m genuinely asking you, as scorekeeper, to, you know, keep score.

Thanks.
Donald Trump Jr is a dumb **** who no one would pay attention to if his dad were not president. It was a shitty joke, amongst many, floating around twitter yesterday. If you are not familiar with the vibrating hammer I referenced you should check it out, it is worth a laugh. "Not gonna vote for that guy"




You want me to go find some random ass Joy Reid, Don lemon, the view post that was equally as dumb? I think we both know they are available on the internet.



Since we are discussing roles, your role was " here for the laughs", laugh a little.
 
I'm not defensive in any way, you m8ght want to consider how much of that is you putting your feelings or beliefs into thr conversation.




I don't mean to be avoiding anything, what are we looking at?
I ask questions, you don’t answer. And it’s pretty clear that you have some pretty sensitive, defensive reactions cooked into your responses. And that’s okay. You probably think I’m trying to gotcha you or something. I’m not, though.

Look, you positioned yourself as scorekeeper. So I’m asking for scorekeeping. The actual questions have been clearly posed directly to you.

You can answer them, or you can keep trying to convince everyone that you aren’t being nor haven’t been defensive.

Whichever means more to you.
 
I ask questions, you don’t answer. And it’s pretty clear that you have some pretty sensitive, defensive reactions cooked into your responses. And that’s okay. You probably think I’m trying to gotcha you or something. I’m not, though.

Look, you positioned yourself as scorekeeper. So I’m asking for scorekeeping. The actual questions have been clearly posed directly to you.

You can answer them, or you can keep trying to convince everyone that you aren’t being nor haven’t been defensive.

Whichever means more to you.
Are you mad? You seem mad...





It's a childish tactic Rudy. I'm actually willing to engage but your going to have to not be a little baby. If you really want me to go find some time one of those stuck their foot in their mouth I will but again, we both know they are out there.
 
Are you mad? You seem mad...





It's a childish tactic Rudy. I'm actually willing to engage but your going to have to not be a little baby. If you really want me to go find some time one of those stuck their foot in their mouth I will but again, we both know they are out there.
Lol no you’re not. Review the thread. I’m super fair with every post. If you were willing to engage you would simply have answered the questions without the defensive, emotion-laden responses.
 
Here is an example of a distasteful event that the view had to apologize for, it took me 10 seconds, and I simply Google "view cast issues apology".


Now, change your pants and laugh a little.
Okay thanks.
 
Lol no you’re not. Review the thread. I’m super fair with every post. If you were willing to engage you would simply have answered the questions without the defensive, emotion-laden responses.
Hahaha, review the thread eh... why don't you review the thread where I made my prediction very early. You can project your emotions on me all.you want but I just actually audibly laughed at your response.






Lighten up Francis.
 
Seems like this example, @Whiskeydeltadeltatango , is quite different than the stuff of DJT Jr. i specifically asked for mocking of politically-motivated violence and/or mocking the victims of politically-motivated violence from a relatively big-voice political or politically-charged media personality, actor or musician or whatever.

An example of Whoopi conflating attendees inside to the protestors outside, then apologizing for being loose with her language, doesn’t seem very equivalent at all to mocking politically-motivated violence and/or mocking victims of politically-motivated violence.

So the question remains from many posts ago: Do you, despite the argument made by the OP op ed, think there is moral equivalence right now between the right wing and left wing?
 
Hahaha, review the thread eh... why don't you review the thread where I made my prediction very early. You can project your emotions on me all.you want but I just actually audibly laughed at your response.






Lighten up Francis.
Just reviewed the thread. I stand by my characterizations of each of us. And I did not see anything resembling a prediction on your behalf.

Can you show me where you made a prediction? Maybe I missed it.
 
Just reviewed the thread. I stand by my characterizations of each of us. And I did not see anything resembling a prediction on your behalf.

Can you show me where you made a prediction? Maybe I missed it.
Post 315 is the original prediction(kinda odd that it happens to be exactly 2x) but I also refrence it in 630. There is another post where I say I believe this but not this as well.





You can stand by whatever you want, You gonna laugh yet?
 
Post 315 is the original prediction(kinda odd that it happens to be exactly 2x) but I also refrence it in 630. There is another post where I say I believe this but not this as well.





You can stand by whatever you want, You gonna laugh yet?
This is the 33rd post of this thread. You’ve been referencing a different thread?
 
Seems like this example, @Whiskeydeltadeltatango , is quite different than the stuff of DJT Jr. i specifically asked for mocking of politically-motivated violence and/or mocking the victims of politically-motivated violence from a relatively big-voice political or politically-charged media personality, actor or musician or whatever.

An example of Whoopi conflating attendees inside to the protestors outside, then apologizing for being loose with her language, doesn’t seem very equivalent at all to mocking politically-motivated violence and/or mocking victims of politically-motivated violence.

So the question remains from many posts ago: Do you, despite the argument made by the OP op ed, think there is moral equivalence right now between the right wing and left wing?
O for the love.



Not interesting in playing dumb games Rudy, I linked the first time some asshat had put something dumb into the media, if you really want to go find the tit for tat, I'll show you how to use Google. Man the **** up, have a laugh, and move on. Don't be what you are accusing someone else of.
 
No, the left recognizes them and speaks out against them, and there is absolutely no comparison between the number of violent acts between those on the left and on the right. All you have to do is to see how the right has made Ashli Babbit a martyr and consider the seditious Capitol rioters as political prisoners.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT