The Locus of Political Violence (Updated, 12/10/10)

[Please follow link below footnotes]

It is hardly surprising that the left and their enablers are attempting to characterize political opposition as violent, but it invites unintended consequences.  Chief among them is a factual assessment of the true locus of political violence (here and here) -- the left.

Actual violence, ranging from so-called "hate speech", (1) intimidation, and the destruction of property to wanton bloodshed has always been and remains the mark of the political left.  That many -- including many on the right -- may instinctively reject this assertion is a testimony to the skill with which the liberal (2) establishment has "managed" the truth.

In the course of the last century the imprisonment, intimidation and slaughter of hundreds of millions is the work of political left.  It is an interesting bit of historical sophistry that fascists, Hitler and Mussolini, are routinely characterized as right wing dictators.  That appellation originated with soviet advocates of world socialism who were frustrated and angry that Germany and Italy embraced national socialism.  The American left succeeded in creating a counter-factual association of the American right with European socialist totalitarians.

The occasion for this essay, as the reader will have guessed, is the is the Democrats' imputation of violence to the Tea Party movement, and indeed to all political opposition.  The capacity of collectivists to project their own traits upon others is without limits.  And it is a fine tactic which correctly assumes that irrational, emotional charges will be given consideration by the rational.


Let me say that I am not claiming that there is no violence on the right of the political spectrum -- there is, but it is relatively rare.  How often do we find examples of conservative riots or even demonstrations that turn violent?  How often assassinations or attempted assassinations?  What about systematic attempts to intimidate political opposition.  What about hate-speech that actually incites to violence?

Having outlined the scope of my argument, let me deal in the reality of recent history in America.  By way of summary, I would point to assassinations (and attempts), riots and protests turned violent (environmentalists, G8), already mentioned.  But since the left and unions share strong affinities, I see as symbolic the long and continuing history of union violence (here, here and here).  I hardly need add the ties between unions and organized crime, but I should note the tactical similarities revealed in the liberal, machine politics known as "The Chicago Way" which is now much in evidence with the current administration.

It is not accidental that the current administration has overtly strong ties with unions (SEIU in particular) and aggressively advocates for increased union power ("Card Check").  The ideology of the left and of organized labor have a long history of congruence, and unions (and similarly organized activist groups such as ACORN) frequently act as surrogates for the left, from furthering liberal social agendas to interfering with free elections.



_____
1.  Hate-speech already has been criminalized in much of Western Europe and in Canada.  Fundamentally, it is an attempt to proscribe any debate if it might offend someone -- especially "victim-classes" that the left wants to be seen as protecting.  It is only a matter of time until the attempt is made to follow suit in the US.  The hate-speech laws as they exist are cast in language so vague that the state can enforce them selectively exercising great latitude of interpretation.  The case of the Netherlands' Geert Wilders is a good example as was an earlier one in Canada involving Mark Steyn.  
The American left is fond of  labeling the political opinions of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and -- in particular -- Glenn Beck as hate-speech simply because they run counter to liberal ideology.  Pundits on the left, though, are often moved to suggest that some conservative or other ought to be killed or beaten, and in the Democrat congress statements are regularly made that impugn the honor of the military, or a sitting Republican president.

2.  By 'left' or 'liberal' I mean persons and groups who are opposed to capitalism, free markets, individualism (in short the West) and whose identity is defined by group values.  They are utopians who believe that man is perfectible if only he is properly led and organized, they are collectivists, and they have little patience with the give and take of the slow democratic process.  They seek to accumulate power that will enable them to regulate the lives of others.  They generally have little respect for the traditions of their own society, and they appeal to emotions rather than reason.  Once opinion becomes the consensus of the group, it is impervious to fact, reason and argument originating outside the group.

Update.  This link confirms (and improves) my thesis.