There have been a spate of diaries and comments lately that express approval for the use of violence in one way or another. I’m not referencing them but if you’ve been reading around you may have noticed them too. The argument is typically along the lines of, “I normally reject violence, but if [Condition X] is present, then I [approve of it/can understand it and won’t criticize it].”
[Condition X] will tend to be an issue that the writer cares passionately about. It may be a response to a person espousing Nazi propaganda, or a Trump supporter making bullying and derogatory statements. Whatever [Condition X] is, it is something that in the writer’s view is somehow so harmful, so hurtful, or so beyond the pale of socially acceptable behavior, that violence is justified.
I reject those opinions for the following reasons:
1. Being the first to use violence is both illegal and morally wrong. For most of human history, political systems were effectively based in violence — whomever was able to marshal more violent capability was awarded the resulting power. Democratic institutions and the rule of law are the evolution from this violent starting state, and choosing to use violence first undermines them. The results of undermining the protections provided by law will always fall most harshly on the least powerful members of society.
2. Using violence in response to [Condition X] is, whether the aggressor likes it or not, effectively a statement that any person may use violence in response to what he or she considers [Condition X]. A person on the left who punches an American Nazi because of speech loses both the logical and moral authority to object to a person on the right who bombs an abortion clinic. Each may object to the other’s actions, but those objections are hollow: both of these people share the view that violence is an acceptable response to what they consider their own personal [Condition X]. While they have very different views of what [Condition X] is, they are in agreement with the general principle that violence is justified in response to what each of them considers to be an extreme situation.
3. When opposing groups both begin to use violence, the moral and intellectual validity of their respective views becomes irrelevant, and the only real issue remaining is which group is stronger and better able to use the tools of violence. I suspect that groups on the right have a lot more of those tools than groups on the left, and the majority of our country’s law enforcement apparatus is now controlled by the right. This would make expanding violence, as a practical matter, a losing proposition for those on the left.
4. Violence used as a mechanism to effect change is most often counterproductive. When the middle-of-the-road voters whose support is critical to winning elections see people on the left choosing to be the first to use violence, I believe that on average this will shift electoral support away from the left.
Being the first to use violence may seem right and it may even feel good, but it is always the wrong choice.
Monday, Jan 23, 2017 · 1:35:26 AM +00:00
·
Tailfish
Update: Based on some comments, I should make clear that I’m referring to “hitting first,” not “hitting back.” I have no problem with a person using physical violence in a proportionate response to a physical attack, as needed to stop or repel that attack. I’m talking about not being the first one to use physical violence.