What's worse, violence on the left or the right? It's a dangerous question
By: Andrew C. McCarthy
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Sounding awfully equivocal, Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Mich.) claimed at a Tuesday hearing to “join my Republican colleagues, unequivocally, in condemning left-wing violence.” “But,” he hastened to add — and you just knew there was one of those totally unequivocal “buts” coming, right? — “let’s stop pretending that the threat of antifa is equivalent to the white supremacist threat.”
Well, of course it’s not. Antifa, the Orwellian name of a Marxist insurrectionary movement, is a terrorist threat that Democrats insist must not be seen for what it is, nor notice taken of the political ramifications — certainly, you are not to notice that antifa colludes with such left-wing darlings as Black Lives Matter in attacks on police officers and government installations. White supremacism, by contrast, is a terrorist threat that Democrats are hell-bent on hanging like a leper’s bell around the necks of their Republican opposition.
Thus did Durbin indulge the same comparison spouted in the same committee last week by Judge Merrick Garland , President Biden ’s attorney general nominee: Months of rampant violence by the radical left, exemplified by the siege on a federal courthouse in Portland, is mere criminal vandalism, whereas a few hours of violence by the radical right, carried out at the Capitol on Jan. 6, is domestic terrorism.
It is a ridiculous analysis.
To rank ideologically motivated violence, under the present circumstances, is to divide the country politically, flouting a principle that ought to be unifying us. In truth, all the violence we are seeing is equally condemnable, regardless of which side is responsible and for which supposedly noble causes they claim to be fighting. Anyone who honestly tried to rank the divergently motivated threats based on their comparative gravity would quickly abandon the effort as counterproductive.
The Capitol riot on Jan. 6 was of relatively short duration. It was, nevertheless, a violent attack on the seat of our government. It was timed with the goal of frustrating a solemn constitutional duty of the federal government to tabulate the states’ electoral votes in order to formally recognize the winner of the presidential election. The siege included assaults on Capitol Police; and though the claim that one officer was brutally killed by rioters is dubious (and has been walked back since first made), four other people also died — all apparently from among the pro-Trump protesters, one killed by security forces, the other three perishing, it appears, from medical conditions exacerbated by the mayhem.
Aspects of the left-wing violence are both more and less serious than the Capitol riot — making any comparison meaningless. The left’s siege against the cities has gone on for eight months. There are spikes and lulls, but it has never completely stopped. Many police have been killed and injured , as have innocent bystanders and rioters . Government buildings have been attacked, as have businesses — many of them destroyed, along with the financial well-being of the innocent people who built them. What’s occurring is not mere vandalism; its leading forces justly regard themselves as revolutionaries against our society and constitutional system.
Sen. Durbin and Judge Garland minimize the siege of the Portland courthouse , as if all that happened were a few hours of graffiti spraying, as opposed to weeks of firebombs and other forcible attacks. And while nothing quite as significant as the constitutionally-mandated Jan. 6 joint session of Congress was occurring inside the complex, it insults our intelligence to suggest that the violence has not interfered with important government business, or that government officials and other people were not gravely imperiled just as they were in the Capitol riot.
And it’s not like Portland is the only place where the radical left is raging. It is a cross-country phenomenon. In Seattle, for example, antifa and its confederates presumed to seize territory and operate an autonomous zone — a provocation that has been imitated in other cities. Swaths of Minneapolis now resemble a third-world war zone. And speaking of Minneapolis, security forces are bracing for still more violence when the trial of former cop Derek Chauvin, accused of murdering George Floyd, gets under way this month — and don’t for a moment think the rioting will be confined to the Twin Cities, especially if a jury reaches the “wrong” verdict.
Democrats spent years soft-pedaling jihadist terror, slandering Americans concerned about it as “Islamophobes.” There was nothing mysterious about this. Islamist organizations that are leading apologists for jihadists (with whom they share sharia supremacist ideology, if not methodology) align with progressive Democrats — many of whom sympathize with their critique of America as a systemically racist, deeply corrupt society. Democrats today turn a blind eye to the radical left’s belligerents for the same reasons. Indeed some, such as Vice President Kamala Harris , signify support by helping bail out arrested sociopaths, who naturally proceed to engage in more mayhem.
In fact, Democrats are now engaging in the very kind of smear they accused the “Islamophobes” of promoting. They are seizing on the Jan. 6 riot not because they condemn politically motivated violence but because they perceive political opportunity. They are relentlessly projecting a hallucination of America mortally threatened by white supremacism, with the transparent purpose of tainting not only all supporters of Donald Trump but Republicans and conservatives who actually have condemned the Capitol siege without equivocation.
The country should be uniting against political violence. It should be that rare thing these days that Americans of good will can agree about, regardless of their partisan affiliations, their political views, or the twisted ideologies of the terrorists. Democrats, instead, are choosing to further divide the country through a libelous narrative. Whatever political advantage they see in this will be fleeting. The damage they are doing will endure.
Tags
Who is online
57 visitors
Domestic terror?
Antifa and BLM
"Antifa and BLM"
Surely you can expand that list ... or is it your position that abject partisanship is healthy?
gee, that's a tough one ...
Feds Now Say Right-Wing Extremists Responsible For Majority Of Deadly Terrorist Attacks Last Year
The U.S. government is acknowledging for the first time that right-wing extremists were responsible for the majority of fatal domestic terrorist attacks last year, according to an internal report circulated by the Department of Homeland Security last week and obtained by Yahoo News.
A review of last year’s domestic terrorist incidents by a DHS fusion center — which shares threat-related information between federal, state and local partners — found that although civil unrest and antigovernment violence were associated with “non-affiliated, right-wing and left-wing actors, right-wing [domestic violent extremists] were responsible for the majority of fatal attacks in the Homeland in 2020.”
The report, produced by the Joint Regional Intelligence Center, a DHS-funded fusion center, was sent out to police and law enforcement agencies nationwide as part of an intelligence-sharing system created after the 9/11 attacks.
yahoo
The American people aren't buying it!
What is the difference? The 'left' won't take away the birth control.
No, the left will try to silence anyone they don't agree with, by any means necessary.
Freedom of speech is only for those who agree with their very narrow views.
your comment is certainly proof, in and of itself.
This is in a sense, more both sidesism, even the seeded article sort of poses the question, which side is worse. On one side you have activists demonstrating against white supremacy and police brutality, and on the other side you have activists and fringe rightwingers protesting in order to help Donald Trump steal the election.
I really dont see the symmetry there but Andrew McCarthy seems to see some. Although there is certainly an effort by the right to equate white supremacy and black lives matter, they are not equally "bad".
The entire premise of this discussion here is that they are.
You're wrongly equating a one off riot to a full fledged political movement
I'm sure both sides feel their cause is worth of protest and beyond. Defunding the police and claiming systemic racism is no different that people who don't like what went down with election laws.
I really dont see the symmetry there but Andrew McCarthy seems to see some. Although there is certainly an effort by the right to equate white supremacy and black lives matter, they are not equally "bad".
BLM is a massive danger to American citizens and they proved it all summer long. White Supremacy is a buzzword representing nothing.
The left wing is engaged in violence against a civilian population. The right wing is engaged in violence against the government.
Not quite the same, is it?
Kyle wasn’t shooting at the government.
Kyle wasn't protesting, was he? Kyle wasn't threatening pedestrians and motorists going about their business, was he? Kyle wasn't threatening businesses, was he?
Kyle wasn't making a political statement with violence, was he?
No, he was too busy murdering innocent people in a place he had no business being in with a gun that he couldn’t even legally own.
Then violence is just criminal behavior and isn't political speech, is it?
When a violent murdering criminal becomes a darling of the right, it becomes political speech.
When 'burn it down' and 'kill the police' become slogans of the political left then every protest is criminal behavior.
“Burn it down” and murder aren’t even remotely comparable, and “kill the police” has never been a “slogan of the political left”. Nice try, but F.
Delusions under an orange sky aren't facts.
Spray paint on the side of a dumpster isn't a "slogan of the political left". Are there crazies among left wing extremists? Yes, just like there are among right wing extremists. Neither represent the "political left" or "political right" which is why they are deemed extremists. Trying to paint all those on the left with the same spray can used for your dumpster slogan is just pure dishonesty.
Really?
The political left is holding the spray can.
FTP
Free The People
Fight The Power
Fuck The Police
Anarchists and gang bangers are holding the spray can. These are not the political left.
For those who don't know: The FTP was the Francs-Tireurs et Partisans or National Front in Vichy France during WWII. The FTP was initially a communist organization engaged in violent armed resistance to Nazi occupation of France.
The Antifa movement originated in Europe following WWII as a far-left (often radical left) political movement modeled on the National Front..
See comment @4.1.14.
Antifa is not made up of anarchists or gang bangers. Antifa subscribes to radical socialist/communist political ideology.
Oh, good. Somebody actually found out what this mysterious, vapor group is made up of .... Oh, wait! They are just "Made up" of "Made Up" groups with "Made Up" ideologies that "Made Up" a buch of shit so that the political right has a bogey man to scream at.
Yeah, made up groups always have their own emblems.
Statism is fascism. In fact, any institutional authority is fascist.
Antifa (at least in Europe) is opportunistic and aligns itself with any political movement that will weaken and eliminate the authority of a statist government.
In the past, Antifa coalesced around a political ideology based upon libertarian socialism or stateless socialism. While the distinction may be subtle, that's not the same thing as anarchy. One political ideology governs all and is enforced by resistance.
The Antifa movement originated in Europe following WWII as a far-left (often radical left) political movement modeled on the National Front..
WTF???
Prove it!
Click the button. A link was provided.
What is interesting is how the National Front became emblematic of far-right politics following WWII. The various French resistance movements were loosely organized under an ultra-partisan, ultra-nationalist umbrella. The French resistance in Vichy France during WWII provided a model for both the far-left and far-right.
And neither the far-left or far-right are moderate in their views.
That's so profound.
IMO it's a failure of talking points rather than denial. Most of the arguments are based upon propaganda using scripted talking points to achieve an objective rather than any sort of considered evaluation. One of the most effective tools for confronting propaganda is cognitive dissonance.
As an example: The idea that democracy is vested in authoritarian institutional government is a self defeating talking point.
Left wing extremists and anarchist opportunists engaged in turning 7% of peaceful protests into violent riots in 2020. Any and all who participated in the violence and vandalism should be found, arrested and held accountable for their crimes.
Right wing extremists and white supremacists along with fellow Trump loyalists attacked the very center of our democracy and attempted to stop our elected officials from carrying out their constitutional duties and interrupted what should have been a peaceful transfer of power. Any and all who participated in the violence and vandalism should be found, arrested and held accountable for their crimes.
Those on either side defending those violent insurrectionists or those anarchist opportunists who intentionally used the cover of largely peaceful civil rights protests to commit violence, vandalism or looting should be ashamed of themselves. I think one fact gets lost in all of this which is the violent extremists on the left do not share any of the ideology of actual liberals and progressives, they are warped, angry pieces of shit hiding behind a peaceful progressive ideology which is one of peace, love, diversity and empathy. On the other hand, right wing extremists are often just putting action to the existing anger and ideology that exists for the average right winger which is one of protectionism, anti-diversity, military strength, machismo and religious misogyny.
BULLSHIT. The center of our democracy is on Main Street and not in the institutions of government.
Attacking the civilian population attacks our democracy.
What civilian population? When, where did that happen?
Just last year, in Seattle, Portland, and Madison, among others.
The QuikTrip convenience mart on West Florissant in Ferguson wasn't a government building. The more than 380 businesses damaged or destroyed in Baltimore weren't government buildings. The businesses on Lake Street in Minneapolis weren't government buildings.
The destruction of private businesses and private property hasn't affected the government in the least. But the destruction of that private property has affected the people in those communities that depended upon those businesses for jobs and to to buy what they needed.
What they refuse to admit is that it was primarily other protesters who were hurt or killed when the protests turned into riots. None of these riots were crowds going door to door dragging civilians out of their homes. There were a handful of business owners who got involved but most of them were the ones firing on the crowd to protect their business from vandalism or looters.
No, it was almost assuredly police.
Here's one "protest" as an example. 49 police injured. Four rioters.
"At least 11 Americans have been killed while participating in political demonstrations this year" " Nine of the people killed during protests were demonstrators taking part in Black Lives Matter protests. Two were conservatives killed after pro-Trump “patriot rallies”.
"At least 115 people were shot in the neck or head between May 26 and July 27 of this year at protests immediately following Floyd’s death.
However, the number of people who suffered those injuries is considered to be just a fraction of the actual number of people shot at Black Lives Matter demonstrations across the U.S ., the report says, since the PHR’s database only includes incidents documented in traditional and social media.
According to the United Nations Guidance on Less Lethal Weapons in Law Enforcement, known risks of KIPs (Kinetic impact projectiles) include skull fractures, brain injuries, permanent blindness, damage to vital organs and death."
Yes, police were injured, some of them seriously during these protests and all violence towards them should be condemned. Anyone throwing anything at policy should be arrested and held accountable for their actions to the fullest extent of the law.
"two Pennsylvania Capitol Police officers suffered unspecified minor injuries on May 30 "
"one officer suffered a minor injury to his head by a thrown object on June 3"
"two officers suffered unspecified minor injuries breaking up a fight between protesters and counter-protesters"
"three officers suffered unspecified minor injuries on June 1"
"at least 13 officers suffered unspecified minor injuries in multiple incidents"
"nine officers suffered unspecified minor injuries from thrown objects on June 1; treated and released"
"eight to ten officers were hit by bricks on June 2; only minor injuries reported"
"seven officers sustained minor injuries when hit by objects on May 29"
"approximately 50 agents and 11 police officers injured by bricks, bottles and Molotov cocktails on May 31. Most injuries minor, but one police officer will require surgery for broken leg."
It’s all vile! It all needs to stop!
Agreed Jane.
In other news, Donald has returned to the WH ... (un)fortunately he was shot dead by a Q-uack who wanted to hasten his reincarnation.
Look, it's not a contest. Wrong is wrong. Debating which is worse is stupid and was never the real issue.
The reason this is a discussion now is because too many people have been blatantly ignoring - or even defending - the violence and chaos that has been inflicted on American cities for months. Then, those same people lost their freakin minds over the events of January 6 - to the point where the Capitol is going to be surrounded by fencing and barbed wire indefinitely. So, we went from no response to an everything response, and all because of the politics of the people involved. That is shameful.
The hypocrisy of that should blow everyone's mind, but I'm willing to set that aside if we will start genuinely condemning all the violence.
I dont think most people have a problem condemning all violence. But I sure as hell have a problem saying that those agitating for racial justice and against police brutality are as bad as white supremacist, far right nut cases, and those who wanted to help Trump overthrow our government.
If we are talking about why they are protesting, I agree with you. But neither cause justifies the violence we see.
I saw no one on the left here defending the violence and vandalism we saw during those riots. I saw some defend the 93% of peaceful protests and the reason for them which was to point out the racial injustice that still plagues our society, but none were defending the violence. I also watched many on the right try and use the 7% of protests that turned violent as an excuse to ignore and reject the 93% of peaceful protests and claim somehow all those on the left were violent anarchists who were supposedly wanting to burn down cities. And then when January 6th happened I saw many here claim it wasn't the right but supposed left wing agitators dressed up as Trump supporters which of course is a total lie. I saw them twist, defend and deflect for the attacks on our capital as if those insurrectionists weren't empowered and emboldened by Trump and his lies about election fraud and lies about their country being stolen from them, likely because those same lies were being spread by some conservatives right here on NT.
Saying there was "no response" to the protests that turned violent is dishonest, there was a response and immediate condemnation from both the MSM and those on the left here on NT. Was the attack on our Capital more egregious? Yes, I believe it was as it wasn't just throwing rocks at riot police or setting dumpsters or even police stations on fire, which of course was shameful and was condemned, but the Capital attack was an attack on the very fabric of our constitution as it was intended to stop the constitutional process of a peaceful transfer of power that we have cherished for over 240 years. We've had many riots through our history, many buildings burned and cars flipped over in anger or desperation, but this is the first time we saw the very center of our government attacked since the British burned the white house down in 1814. To equate the attack on the Capital to the 7% of protests that turned violent is truly shameful and just serves to dismiss the validity of the 93% of peaceful protests that had a right to protest and had a valid reason for doing so and did so peacefully. The only reason I can think of for anyone to want to paint all the protests as violent riots or all those on the left as violent rioters is that some refuse to accept the premise of the actual peaceful protests, that yes, as a society we still have systemic racism and inequality. And the only reason to do that is because those folk like the status quo of racial injustice and don't think black Americans should be treated equally and don't believe black lives actually matter.
I didn't refer to any members of NT. Out in the world, resistance to putting down violent riots and even claims that looting and vandalism are justified are well documented.
“I saw no one on the left here defending the violence and vandalism we saw during those riots.”
i did. I saw one dumbass idiot saying “it’s just property, it can be replaced.”