Leftist Street Violence Isn’t New, and It’s Not Going Away

Post Reply New Topic

Within the institutions that cater to the American left, a contradictory notion has taken hold. It has become an article of faith that the right is responsible for the rising tide of political violence in America. At the same time, however, those who engage in violence in defense of the left’s program are often lauded for their refusal to adhere to outdated and insufficient norms of civil conduct.

Since the 1980s, “the extreme right has held a near-monopoly on political violence,” wrote the Nation’s Joshua Holland in 2017. A “decades-long drop-off in violence by left-wing groups,” coincided with a shocking rise in murderous violence by “right-wing extremists,” read a 2018 report from the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism. The idea of the “violent left” is even a “myth,” the Southern Poverty Law Center averred just last week, designed to radicalize the right to preemptively attack its political adversaries. And when murderous left-wing violence occurs, it is contextualized into insignificance, as was the case when NPR opened a report on the mass shooting of Republicans in Alexandria with the line: “Some conservatives have seized on Wednesday’s shooting of Republican Rep. Steve Scalise…”

But when mythological left-wing violence becomes impossible to ignore, it is often excused or even lionized—sometimes in the very venues in which its existence is dismissed.

Dartmouth College lecturer and “historian of human rights,” Mark Bray, has refashioned himself as America’s foremost Antifa apologist. In his book and in places like the Washington Post, he’s argued that “physical violence against white supremacists is both ethically justifiable and strategically effective.” The Nation’s Natasha Lennard has similarly praised this organization’s “militant left-wing and anarchist politics,” and mocked its critics as “civility-fetishizing” liberals who “cling to institutions.” Nor is Antifa alone in this campaign. A Mother Jones profile of the many left-of-center grassroots groups whose resistance “sometimes goes beyond nonviolent protest—including picking up arms” is anything but condemnatory. Given this preamble, it’s hardly a surprise to see how the arbiters of national political discourse responded to the recent Antifa-led gang assault on the journalist Andy Ngo.

Ngo has dedicated himself to chronicling Antifa’s increasingly menacing activities, particularly in his home city of Portland, Oregon. He’s videotaped Antifa mobs beating people bloody, capturing control of city blocks and attacking passing motorists, and vandalizing property—all without police interference. This weekend, Ngo himself became the target of Antifa violence. A crowd of demonstrators, clad in black and with their faces covered, were seen taking turns throwing objects at Ngo, beating him about the head, and spraying caustic substances in his face. The reporter was hospitalized with head trauma, one of several victims of this mob’s bloodlust.

The violence against Ngo received nationwide coverage… on Twitter. When it was discussed at more length in the press, it was subjected to the kind of deconstruction that robs these violent episodes of their urgency. National Review’s Jim Geraghty observed the Oregonian take pains to avoid ruling out the possibility that Ngo’s assailants were provoked to the point of savage violence. Huffington Post reporter Christopher Mathias and briefly retained New York University journalism lecturer Talia Levin mocked the assault as insufficiently bloody. Countless reporters and institutions, including the Associated Press, questioned Ngo’s journalistic credentials—a non sequitur that serves no higher purpose than tacitly legitimizing the attack on him.

Ngo’s ordeal should not have come as a surprise, and not just among those who recall how journalists were attacked and their equipment vandalized by leftwing protesters in Virginia less than a year ago. As I chronicle in detail in my book, political violence has been on the rise for years and it is at least as attributable to the left as it is the right.

In August of 2016, as the American press was consumed by the theoretical prospect of mass violence meted out by Donald Trump’s supporters, the observable phenomenon of anti-Trump mob violence was going all but unnoticed. Both the spontaneous and organized forms of “anti-fascist action” had become a common feature of the political landscape on the activist fringes by August of that election year. The fever hadn’t broken by October, when a Republican Party office in North Carolina was firebombed, nor did it abate by inauguration day, when over 200 people were arrested in connection with a nationwide spasm of rioting and property destruction.

The far left’s violent impulses were seen last year, when Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s California offices were attacked and burglarized, a gunman shot up a GOP satellite office in Florida, and a New York City Republican union hall was vandalized.

Post-hoc justifications for engaging in politics by other means are not hard to find. “Abandoning civility,” the Atlantic staff writer Vann Newkirk wrote in 2016, is necessary when engaging with people who “have already breached the bounds of civility.” You can see shades of this logic reflected in this weekend’s op-eds in the Washington Post by Red Hen restaurant owner Stephanie Wilkinson, who called on her fellow restaurateurs to deny service to “an unwelcome potential patron” because of his or her politics. It’s evident in a Saturday New York Times opinion piece, which called on Americans to name and shame their fellow citizens who work in border patrol. These are not incitements to violence, but nor do they see the traditional conduct of politics as sufficient to the urgency of the moment. What’s required of responsible citizens is the total national merging of public and private life, and common courtesies are a luxury we can no longer afford.

The far left’s violent impulses were seen last year, when Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s California offices were attacked and burglarized, a gunman shot up a GOP satellite office in Florida, and a New York City Republican union hall was vandalized.

Post-hoc justifications for engaging in politics by other means are not hard to find. “Abandoning civility,” the Atlantic staff writer Vann Newkirk wrote in 2016, is necessary when engaging with people who “have already breached the bounds of civility.” You can see shades of this logic reflected in this weekend’s op-eds in the Washington Post by Red Hen restaurant owner Stephanie Wilkinson, who called on her fellow restaurateurs to deny service to “an unwelcome potential patron” because of his or her politics. It’s evident in a Saturday New York Times opinion piece, which called on Americans to name and shame their fellow citizens who work in border patrol. These are not incitements to violence, but nor do they see the traditional conduct of politics as sufficient to the urgency of the moment. What’s required of responsible citizens is the total national merging of public and private life, and common courtesies are a luxury we can no longer afford.

The far left’s violent impulses were seen last year, when Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s California offices were attacked and burglarized, a gunman shot up a GOP satellite office in Florida, and a New York City Republican union hall was vandalized.

Post-hoc justifications for engaging in politics by other means are not hard to find. “Abandoning civility,” the Atlantic staff writer Vann Newkirk wrote in 2016, is necessary when engaging with people who “have already breached the bounds of civility.” You can see shades of this logic reflected in this weekend’s op-eds in the Washington Post by Red Hen restaurant owner Stephanie Wilkinson, who called on her fellow restaurateurs to deny service to “an unwelcome potential patron” because of his or her politics. It’s evident in a Saturday New York Times opinion piece, which called on Americans to name and shame their fellow citizens who work in border patrol. These are not incitements to violence, but nor do they see the traditional conduct of politics as sufficient to the urgency of the moment. What’s required of responsible citizens is the total national merging of public and private life, and common courtesies are a luxury we can no longer afford.

In a society in which politics is tantamount to fighting an existential war, observing the bounds of civic decency is tantamount to suicide. To certain minds, the notion that it is a moral imperative to drum people of a particular political persuasion out of civic and cultural life demands violence. Anything less is capitulatory.

Of course, it must be said that the right has its own violent fringe, which it has failed to sufficiently denounce and has encouraged by confusing political disagreements with existential crises. It only must be said, however, because the professionally obtuse will try to claim that any condemnation of leftist political violence tacitly condones its mirror image on the right. This kind of intellectual vacuity is sadly common. It also explains why there is almost no urgency within the political class to make examples of their side’s reprehensibly anti-social activists—there isn’t much upside and there is a lot of risk involved. But it seems increasingly likely that the growing menace posed by politicized street violence will one day focus the public’s minds on the problem. The only question is the scale of the tragedy that will force us to confront the threat.

starting a thread with a huge piece of copy and paste with not even any input from the thread-starter is a complete waste of time as far as I'm concerned, there's no way I'm trawling through all of that to find out whatever point it is you're trying to make

It's a very one-sided article which isn't worth reading on its own unless you're particularly interested in what the far-right think.

There's a better one from Vox: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... proud-boys

In short, there have been lots of white nationalist protests in Portland, Oregon. These have often been met by counter-protests.

A far-right journalist with a long record of harassing leftists (including doxxing them) announced that another protest was going to be taking place. This journalist is best known for recording misleading videos about the UK being under Sharia law, including claiming that alcohol-control zones are to stop Muslims being offender rather than to stop alcohol-related violence

When this journalist showed up to record the protests, he was recognised and severely beaten. He did not use any physical force against his attackers.

Obviously this is reprehensible, but the article attempts to suggest that this is remotely comparable in scale to the violence of the organised right. There are no anarchists marching through the streets shouting anti-Semitic slogans. There are no anarchists driving cars into protestors and killing them. There are no anarchists shooting up synagogues and mosques. And these anarchists don't have the support of elected officials, including the president. It's entirely disingenuous to draw any equivalency between the violent American right and the violent American left - no doubt that the violent right are responsible for far more crime.

With no statistical backing I would say that my perception is that violence on both sides of extremism is rising. I would say that traditionally right hate groups have had a longer and more violent history in America and thus a higher baseline of violence.

Arguing which side is worst seems nonsensical to me. You don't have to chose a side to condemn violent attacks. What I find alarming is the number of people who in the circles I run with defend AntiFa violence. No single person I know has argued that neo-Nazis are right for their violent acts. Several have suggested events like the violent riots at Berkeley to shut down conservative speakers were justified.

With no statistical backing I would say that my perception is that violence on both sides of extremism is rising. I would say that traditionally right hate groups have had a longer and more violent history in America and thus a higher baseline of violence.

Arguing which side is worst seems nonsensical to me. You don't have to chose a side to condemn violent attacks. What I find alarming is the number of people who in the circles I run with defend AntiFa violence. No single person I know has argued that neo-Nazis are right for their violent acts. Several have suggested events like the violent riots at Berkeley to shut down conservative speakers were justified.

It's a very one-sided article which isn't worth reading on its own unless you're particularly interested in what the far-right think.

There's a better one from Vox: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... proud-boys

In short, there have been lots of white nationalist protests in Portland, Oregon. These have often been met by counter-protests.

A far-right journalist with a long record of harassing leftists (including doxxing them) announced that another protest was going to be taking place. This journalist is best known for recording misleading videos about the UK being under Sharia law, including claiming that alcohol-control zones are to stop Muslims being offender rather than to stop alcohol-related violence

When this journalist showed up to record the protests, he was recognised and severely beaten. He did not use any physical force against his attackers.

Obviously this is reprehensible, but the article attempts to suggest that this is remotely comparable in scale to the violence of the organised right. There are no anarchists marching through the streets shouting anti-Semitic slogans. There are no anarchists driving cars into protestors and killing them. There are no anarchists shooting up synagogues and mosques. And these anarchists don't have the support of elected officials, including the president. It's entirely disingenuous to draw any equivalency between the violent American right and the violent American left - no doubt that the violent right are responsible for far more crime.

I specifically don't like AntiFa, because of their tactics and seems they more perpetuate problems than actually help solve any issues regarding neo nazism and white supremacy.

I didn't hear of the violent riots you mention, but yeah that is not the kind of thing I agree with...a peaceful assembly to oppose a conservative speaker would be better. Anyone who incites violence at a protest is a gigantic a**hole, regardless of what side they are on.

Protests that erupted at UC Berkeley ahead of a planned Wednesday appearance by right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos caused $100,000 worth of damage to the campus, the school said Thursday.

The university blamed "150 masked agitators" for the unrest, saying they had come to campus to disturb an otherwise peaceful protest.

Black-clad protesters wearing masks threw commercial-grade fireworks and rocks at police. Some even hurled Molotov cocktails that ignited fires. They also smashed windows of the student union center on the Berkeley campus where the Yiannopoulos event was to be held.

More than 1,500 protesters had gathered at Sproul Plaza, chanting and holding signs that read: "No safe space for racists" and "This is war."

The violent protesters tore down metal barriers, set fires near the campus bookstore and damaged the construction site of a new dorm. One woman wearing a red Trump hat was pepper sprayed in the face while being interviewed by CNN affiliate KGO. She was able to respond that she was OK after the attack.

I don’t know exactly who is at fault in Portland but whomever that is or they are have let political thugs rule the streets and have failed in their basic job of letting people enjoy free speech rights without violent consequences.

Listening to Bret and Andrew talk it sounds like a lot of this is at the feet of the mayor, and to whatever extent he would present himself as squishy or moderate he's going to have to not only denounce what happened but give the police the authority to break this kind of thing up and enforce applicable mask and weapon laws.

A far-right journalist with a long record of harassing leftists (including doxxing them) announced that another protest was going to be taking place. This journalist is best known for recording misleading videos about the UK being under Sharia law, including claiming that alcohol-control zones are to stop Muslims being offender rather than to stop alcohol-related violence

When this journalist showed up to record the protests, he was recognised and severely beaten. He did not use any physical force against his attackers.

Correction An earlier version mistakenly identified the public context of a sign that declared “Alcohol-restricted zone.” Such signs refer to a prohibition on public drinking and appear in many English neighborhoods, irrespective of Muslim population.

Bret is calling for state violence. This is what he is doing.

Don't you understand the danger in begging for state repression? The government will end up targeting people who had nothing to do with the altercation.