Deterring political violence in the US: a proposal.

[The Romulan Republic]

In response to this thread:

https://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic ... 7&start=25

As I'm sure many of you are aware, I've argued very strongly against political violence, terrorism, vigilantism, etc. in response to Right wing extremism, or for any reason other than defensive necessity.

However, I also recognize that their is an increase in political violence in America, and that there is a need for a deterrent and defence against political violence, while hopefully not unduly escalating things.

So I've been tossing around this idea for a while, which I've mentioned once or twice before, and I'd like to discuss it in more detail.

Specifically, I am wondering if it would be a good idea for the Democratic Party to devote a certain amount of funding to hiring more armed private security in order to, to the extent permitted by law, protect its candidates, properties, and events. This seems to me to be a prudent measure, due to the frequency of threats against candidates (we had one thread recently regarding a Democratic Congressional candidate who withdrew from their race, in part because of threats) and the lack of Secret Service protection for Congressional, state, and local candidates. It would also provide a deterrent, and send a message that the Left will not take threats or acts of violence from the Right lying down, while still complying with the law and avoiding the dangers of relying on militia- particularly the tendency towards lack of training and discipline, the lack of accountability, and the tendency to attract paranoid conspiracy theorist types and people who are itching for a fight rather than trying to prevent one, resulting in itchy trigger fingers. This approach could also be implemented by non-profit civil rights and activist groups, potentially (at least those that have the resources to do so).

Naturally, any private security hired ought to be carefully vetted and well-trained. But as a registered Democrat, I'd be willing to donate money to help fund such a program.

However, I'm curious to hear others' opinions on the feasibility, ethical implications, and political implications of such a proposal.

[Zaune]

While it would be nice to leave this sort of thing up to trained professionals as far as reasonably practical, it's not just high-profile targets like election candidates or organised rallies by well-known organisations who are at risk. That counter-protest in Charlotteville that was attacked by a white nationalist ramming his car into the crowd, for example; they didn't have enough notice to get real security coverage, even if they could club together to afford it. And would a security firm, as opposed to a private military contractor, even have the hardware and training to stop that kind of ramming attack? The local police clearly didn't, at least not in the immediate vicinity. (I shall refrain from commenting on the allegations that they could have acted but didn't until a clearer picture of the sequence of events is available, except to note that collusion between the police and white nationalists in the South is not without precedent.)

I think the US Left's best -perhaps only- option at this point is to start forming some militas of their own, preferably while recognising the drawbacks and taking steps to mitigate them: Every volunteer should have to provide character references and pass an interview before being considered, and then have to pass whatever certifications the state requires for armed security guards before being allowed to train with heavier weapons. That probably wouldn't screen out everyone who's liable to panic and open fire on someone who turns out to be unarmed, but it'd be better than nothing. And certainly more than the GOP are bothering to do.

And if... when... the situation deteriorates to the point where the focus must shift from armed security to armed resistance, the groundwork will be in place.

[The Romulan Republic]

While it would be nice to leave this sort of thing up to trained professionals as far as reasonably practical, it's not just high-profile targets like election candidates or organised rallies by well-known organisations who are at risk. That counter-protest in Charlotteville that was attacked by a white nationalist ramming his car into the crowd, for example; they didn't have enough notice to get real security coverage, even if they could club together to afford it. And would a security firm, as opposed to a private military contractor, even have the hardware and training to stop that kind of ramming attack? The local police clearly didn't, at least not in the immediate vicinity. (I shall refrain from commenting on the allegations that they could have acted but didn't until a clearer picture of the sequence of events is available, except to note that collusion between the police and white nationalists in the South is not without precedent.)

Its an imperfect solution, but it is certainly no more imperfect than starting a Left vs. Right militia arms race.

I think the US Left's best -perhaps only- option at this point is to start forming some militas of their own, preferably while recognising the drawbacks and taking steps to mitigate them: Every volunteer should have to provide character references and pass an interview before being considered, and then have to pass whatever certifications the state requires for armed security guards before being allowed to train with heavier weapons. That probably wouldn't screen out everyone who's liable to panic and open fire on someone who turns out to be unarmed, but it'd be better than nothing. And certainly more than the GOP are bothering to do.

And how many private militias would undertake those kinds of restrictions? Who would make them, and regulate them?

No one.

So you would get what you usually get with militias- political radicals and paranoiacs and people with a vendetta and wannabe tough guys- a lot of posturers who would fold in the face of a real adversity, plus a few serious nut jobs who would start a fight that the others would not be prepared to wage.

This is the fundamental problem with unregulated private militias, and I'm not convinced that its something that can be corrected, so much as the nature of the beast.

As well throw a lighted match into a can of gasoline.

And if... when... the situation deteriorates to the point where the focus must shift from armed security to armed resistance, the groundwork will be in place.

And this here is part of the problem. You've already apparently decided that armed revolt becoming necessary is inevitable, as will likely be true for most people who would be willing to join or support such a militia- which means at best people who are likely to jump to violence as a necessity in response to relatively minor provocations without stopping to consider weather it actually is necessary, and at worst, people who will think "we need to hit them first before they hit us".

"Ends justify the means", and your "deterrent" or "defensive" militia instead becomes the instigator of mass political violence, which will cost your side any chance at sympathy from moderates, while giving the Right a perfect excuse to crack down on Left-wing activists.

In short, my position is based on the mindset of someone who sees political violence as a threat and wishes to deter it. Your position appears to be that of someone who has decided that conflict is a necessity and is therefore advocating actions that are likely to escalate it.

I think you need to ask yourself: Is your goal to preserve life and liberty, or just to destroy the other side?

[aerius]

In short, my position is based on the mindset of someone who sees political violence as a threat and wishes to deter it. Your position appears to be that of someone who has decided that conflict is a necessity and is therefore advocating actions that are likely to escalate it.

I think you need to ask yourself: Is your goal to preserve life and liberty, or just to destroy the other side?

Gonna ask a question: Do you understand the goals & mindset of the other side? Do you know what makes them tick and how they work? Cause if you don't, you're gonna have a problem.

[The Romulan Republic]

In short, my position is based on the mindset of someone who sees political violence as a threat and wishes to deter it. Your position appears to be that of someone who has decided that conflict is a necessity and is therefore advocating actions that are likely to escalate it.

I think you need to ask yourself: Is your goal to preserve life and liberty, or just to destroy the other side?

Gonna ask a question: Do you understand the goals & mindset of the other side? Do you know what makes them tick and how they work? Cause if you don't, you're gonna have a problem.

Its difficult to try to guess at why another person does what they do, but my general impression of the Alt. Right is that it attracts people who are looking for an ideology to give their lives meaning and importance; or a scapegoat for their troubles; or who are feeling threatened, insecure, as a result of historical privileges and power that they consider their due being eroded in the name of greater equality, and thus see things like "Social Justice" and multiculturalism as a plot to persecute them.

I think a lot of it comes down to people viewing society as a zero-sum game played along demographic lines, where only one demographic (preferably theirs') can be the winner. Which is actively fuelled by Right-wing media and politicians who wish to profit off their fears.

I'm not sure how to combat that in the short-term. If I was brilliant enough to figure out how to remove bigotry from the human soul, I could run for President myself (well, in seven-plus years when I'm legally old enough to do so). The only way I can see is for time, education, and generational shifts to take effect. So its a question of trying to keep a lid on the tensions as much as possible in the meantime- to not give ground already won, or allow the other side to intimidate or suppress us, but not to escalate things further.

[Zaune]

My position is not so much that conflict is necessary as that it's unavoidable, so we might as well get it over with. And preferably make sure our side is the one that's not getting rounded up and purged unto the third generation.

And at this point, my goal is for my friends and family in the United States (nearly all of whom are somewhere on the LGBT+ spectrum or have some kind of disability) to get to die of old age instead of being lynched or dragged off to concentration camps.

[The Romulan Republic]

My position is not so much that conflict is necessary as that it's unavoidable, so we might as well get it over with.

This is the kind of attitude that leads to rushing into fights without thinking about weather their are other alternatives, because you've already dismissed those alternatives. "Inevitability" is a really easy way to justify some really horrible shit.

And preferably make sure our side is the one that's not getting rounded up and purged unto the third generation.

Was that really badly worded, or are you suggesting that you want the other side to be the ones "rounded up and purged unto the third generation"?

And at this point, my goal is for my friends and family in the United States (nearly all of whom are somewhere on the LGBT+ spectrum or have some kind of disability) to get to die of old age instead of being lynched or dragged off to concentration camps.

I don't think we're quite that far gone yet, but I do share your concern.

But in part for that reason, I don't want to add to or escalate political violence, or be the ones to start a conflict. Because when political violence becomes the norm, its not just the "bad guys" getting hurt and killed, and it tends to be the vulnerable groups that gets hit hardest.

Their is every possibility that some or all of the people you care about would become "collateral damage" in the war that you seem ready for us to rush into.

As bad as the situation in America is, objectively, we are a long, long way from the point where civil war would be the "lesser evil", and I don't think that most people who are calling for violence or militias really realize that, because they've never lived in a country that is that far gone (and I'm including myself in that).

Could we get there? Sure. Any country could, under the wrong circumstances. Is it worth preparing for that possibility? Yes.

But that preparation has to be done in a manner that is not going to actively make things worse.

And, let's be honest: if the scenario you seem to be describing played out, if it came to a civil war between a genocidal Trumpian fascist government and a Left-wing militia movement... we'd lose. Hard. Militias are a poor match for professional militaries.

My proposal (as unlikely as it may be for such a proposal to be implemented) would give the Left more armed protection, but organized, trained armed protection, with powerful political backing. Which if we ever did, God forbid, get to the point where we needed to fight a war, seems to me a better basis for building a fighting force. While not being as likely to escalate or cause violence that could have been avoided.

It seems to me that your approach only makes sense if the goal is not to minimize loss of life, but to escalate us to routine bloody street battles as quickly as possible and with as little chance as possible of actually winning.

[Zaune]

Was that really badly worded, or are you suggesting that you want the other side to be the ones "rounded up and purged unto the third generation"?

Depends how bitter and frustrated I happen to be feeling at the time.

I don't think we're quite that far gone yet, but I do share your concern.

But in part for that reason, I don't want to add to or escalate political violence, or be the ones to start a conflict. Because when political violence becomes the norm, its not just the "bad guys" getting hurt and killed, and it tends to be the vulnerable groups that gets hit hardest.

Their is every possibility that some or all of the people you care about would become "collateral damage" in the war that you seem ready for us to rush into.

As bad as the situation in America is, objectively, we are a long, long way from the point where civil war would be the "lesser evil", and I don't think that most people who are calling for violence or militias really realize that, because they've never lived in a country that is that far gone (and I'm including myself in that).

Could we get there? Sure. Any country could, under the wrong circumstances. Is it worth preparing for that possibility? Yes.

But that preparation has to be done in a manner that is not going to actively make things worse.

And, let's be honest: if the scenario you seem to be describing played out, if it came to a civil war between a genocidal Trumpian fascist government and a Left-wing militia movement... we'd lose. Hard. Militias are a poor match for professional militaries.

My proposal (as unlikely as it may be for such a proposal to be implemented) would give the Left more armed protection, but organized, trained armed protection, with powerful political backing. Which if we ever did, God forbid, get to the point where we needed to fight a war, seems to me a better basis for building a fighting force. While not being as likely to escalate or cause violence that could have been avoided.

It seems to me that your approach only makes sense if the goal is not to minimize loss of life, but to escalate us to routine bloody street battles as quickly as possible and with as little chance as possible of actually winning.

Maybe so. But routine bloody street battles are bidding fair to be a thing whatever we do, because the likes of the Charlotteville marchers and their sympathisers will make them happen.

Don't get me wrong, I think your proposal does have merit. But I think at least some of this has to come from the grassroots, both because of practical considerations and for propaganda purposes. The Right could spin a hired bodyguard service as the Left cowering behind mercenaries instead of standing up for themselves, and use that as an excuse for ramping up the violent intimidation or just plain violence. Ordinary citizens banding together to protect themselves is harder to spin (not that they won't try) because it plays off some of the same rhetoric they use.

And hey, maybe when faced by the prospect of serious opposition from people equally trigger-happy and ruthless as themselves they'll go away and whine about it on Twitter because it's not fair; the liberals and the [insert ethnic slur here]s aren't meant to fight back. Bullies rarely take it well when their own tactics are turned back on them.

[The Romulan Republic]

Depends how bitter and frustrated I happen to be feeling at the time.

Let's not start talking about exterminating the other side (and if I took you literally, wouldn't "unto the third generation" include children?).

While arguing for violent militias to oppose Nazis, you are very, very close to advocating genocide yourself here. That should give you pause, if you have any capacity for reason or desire for ideological consistency.

Maybe so. But routine bloody street battles are bidding fair to be a thing whatever we do, because the likes of the Charlotteville marchers and their sympathisers will make them happen.

Maybe so. But the question is, do we respond to that by trying to limit the violence and destruction as much as possible while still protecting ourselves and innocents? Or do we say "well, in for a penny in for a pound", and escalate the violence as quickly and catastrophically as possible?

Don't get me wrong, I think your proposal does have merit. But I think at least some of this has to come from the grassroots, both because of practical considerations and for propaganda purposes. The Right could spin a hired bodyguard service as the Left cowering behind mercenaries instead of standing up for themselves, and use that as an excuse for ramping up the violent intimidation or just plain violence. Ordinary citizens banding together to protect themselves is harder to spin (not that they won't try) because it plays off some of the same rhetoric they use.

No, they'd spin it as the Left being terrorists (more than they already are, I mean, and with more people susceptible to that rhetoric), and start making noises about shutting down Left-wing political organizations as terrorist organizations.

And hey, maybe when faced by the prospect of serious opposition from people equally trigger-happy and ruthless as themselves they'll go away and whine about it on Twitter because it's not fair; the liberals and the [insert ethnic slur here]s aren't meant to fight back. Bullies rarely take it well when their own tactics are turned back on them.

Some of them, maybe, but I think the kind of people crazy enough to drive cars into crowds are past the point of being intimidated by a show of force.

As I've said before, this seems an awful lot like the fantasy of the "short, victorious war". I might also quote Nietzsche with regards to the "people equally trigger-happy and ruthless as themselves" bit:

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

Again, you need to ask yourself what your goal is. Is it to protect the rights and lives of innocent people, or simply to hurt/kill the other side?

If the former, you do no good by encouraging the Left to become just as vicious as literal fucking Nazis. That level of extremism and brutality does not restrict itself to attacking actual enemies, or to "necessary" acts of violence- it sees enemies everywhere, and if it ever ran out of enemies, it would begin to create new ones, and turn on itself.

If you become indistinguishable from the enemy, then it ceases to matter who wins. It may be a cliche, but its also true.

[Zaune]

It would matter to me who won, because if it was my side then I might get to live. I'm on disability, remember? These bastards would gladly go after the likes of me as soon as they ran out of Jews.

But no, I do not wish to advocate genocide. I may be advocating a few things that would be called terrorism by the Right if it was someone other than them doing it, but I would on the whole prefer that the Left refrain from going full Stalin. If it ever sounds like I'm straying towards that territory it's probably because I'm more than usually frustrated, annoyed and/or worried about whatever the hell that spray-tanned idiot and his fanclub have done this time.

[The Romulan Republic]

Fair enough, I suppose.

And yes, I suppose from a purely personal perspective it would matter who won. But in a larger social sense- your motives come from a better place than the Neo-Nazis, but if your side embraces the enemy's methods, when the enemy is literally about mass-murdering civilians... well, then its not going to matter who wins, in the sense of preventing the deaths of a lot of innocent people. That's my point.

My goal is the preservation of life and liberty, by preserving a society based on democracy and the rule of law. Every argument I make is intended towards that end.

[Simon_Jester]

Suffice to say that while there may be more Charlottesville-style violence by neo-Nazis against normal Americans (in other words, the center-left majority of American society)...

Charlottesville is NOT turning out to be a victory for neo-Nazis. There is little evidence that the antifascist protestors were deterred, at least some of the neo-Nazis who attended the rally are being outed to employers and getting in trouble, and in general the public is not as a whole reacting to this in a way that enables the neo-Nazi faction to get stronger and start brutalizing everyone else into compliance.

Domestic terrorism happens- remember Oklahoma City? I do. The key question is whether a given act of domestic terrorism works as intended (by intimidating minorities while the majority stands by and mumbles approvingly) or backfires (by making the terrorists look like evil idiots and causing society to crack down on them).

It may be too soon to tell, but it looks like Charlottesville is going to turn into an incident of the second type. Because one thing most Americans, a solidly overwhelming majority, can agree on is that actual Nazis are terrible.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yes. I've been quite encouraged by the public response, on the whole.

America has a lot of problems, but it is not yet a country where the majority are willing to put on their brown shirts or their white hoods, or stand by in silent acceptance while others do so.

[Raw Shark]

If the Left starts tooling up out of their pockets, the Right will escalate for free. There are plenty of armed right-wingers who would volunteer for that sort of thing, as this last week has demonstrated. Do they have three-inch dicks? Probably. But they also have lots of guns, and in many cases time on their hands (paid for by the federal government they claim to resist).

I think violence is wrong, but I'm a somewhat aggressive individual who still bears bruises from my last fight. This is the American paradox. We were born in blood, baptized in blood, and will possibly die in blood. I voted for Sanders, and own two firearms myself. I will wear a flower in my earlobe and hug a stranger. But if the shit ever really hits the fan, I'll be the guy in the hockey mask demanding your guzzeline, with a small army of misfit toys behind me. I'm an Eagle Scout. I have been a leader. I contain multitudes. America is funny that way.

I don't believe in violence, but I believe in being good at it.

[Flagg]

I don't believe in violence, but I believe in being good at it.

I believe in violence. I've seen it with my own 2 eyes.

[Zaune]

Well, I do believe in violence. It worked really damn well whenever other people used it on me, anyway.

[Flagg]

Well, I do believe in violence. It worked really damn well whenever other people used it on me, anyway.

I hear you. You have your second grade teacher declare open season on you because you're IQ is high as shit but the classes bore you and half the shit she teaches is fucking wrong, so some dickhead decides you're going to be a punching bag, but you've had glasses since you were 14 months old and bifocals since 3, when you started to read, have learned exactly what you do when a dickhead comes around, and when it turns out that you aren't a punching bag, but you kick the shit out of every fucking dickhead who comes at you and oh, you can't be put in advanced classes, you have bad behavior!

If someone wants to be some dickhead cunt's punching bag that's up to them, but you take a swing at me? You go down or I do, and to me that's a fucking win. Every. Single. Time.

[Raw Shark]

Yeah, I didn't do so good in school. The other kids decided that I needed to be hit. I decided that they needed to be hit back.

[Zaune]

I, by contrast, went full-on with the self-loathing and the suicidal ideation etc. Which is probably what they wanted.

[Flagg]

I, by contrast, went full-on with the self-loathing and the suicidal ideation etc. Which is probably what they wanted.

Yeah, that came after.

[The Romulan Republic]

If the Left starts tooling up out of their pockets, the Right will escalate for free. There are plenty of armed right-wingers who would volunteer for that sort of thing, as this last week has demonstrated. Do they have three-inch dicks? Probably. But they also have lots of guns, and in many cases time on their hands (paid for by the federal government they claim to resist).

I think violence is wrong, but I'm a somewhat aggressive individual who still bears bruises from my last fight. This is the American paradox. We were born in blood, baptized in blood, and will possibly die in blood. I voted for Sanders, and own two firearms myself. I will wear a flower in my earlobe and hug a stranger. But if the shit ever really hits the fan, I'll be the guy in the hockey mask demanding your guzzeline, with a small army of misfit toys behind me. I'm an Eagle Scout. I have been a leader. I contain multitudes. America is funny that way.

I don't believe in violence, but I believe in being good at it.

Well, I accept the right to use violence when necessary to defend oneself or others.

I'm not even saying it would be wrong in theory for Left-wing activists to go armed, in case they need to defend themselves against an attack.

Its just that, in practice, when you get a bunch of armed, angry people on different sides in a tense situation, most of whom don't have a great deal of training... well, some of them will get itchy trigger fingers. And while I don't want violence, I especially don't want our side to be the ones starting it. Both for moral reasons, and because it will play into Trump's narrative, and give him grounds to use the government to crack down on Left-wing activists and organizations.

Even if we were in an actual state of war, I'd want it to be absolutely clear, at all times, that the other side was the aggressor. That's not naïve, that's pragmatism. Even during the run-up to the Civil War, when the violent suppression of white supremacist rebels was necessary and justified, Abraham Lincoln went to great pains to make sure that it was clear that the South started the war, that the North was not the aggressor. Because he would have suffered a loss of both international support and the border states if he hadn't.

Edit: In any case, a few rag-tag militias on "our" side isn't going to solve this, whatever action movies may suggest. The problem is not that their are violent militias and terrorists on the Right. Or, rather, that is a problem, but its normally a manageable one.

The problem is that they have a new degree of backing from the authorities, and powerful figures within the Republican Party. That takes them from "small-scale threat" to "potential fundamental threat to democracy and the rule of law". Its also not something that militia on the Left is going to be able to counter, because that will just make it easier for Trump to condemn the Left as the "real" terrorists, and turn the power of the Federal government against us.

So what's the solution? Ideally, by doing everything in our power to make it clear that we are not the aggressors here, we can continue to build on the public outrage over Charlottsville, and Trump's response to it. Hopefully, we can remove Trump and his cronies from office, via election and impeachment, and once again have a Federal government which is not a friend to white supremacy.

Failing that, mass public protest can sometimes topple a government without it devolving into full-blown civil war.

If it does come to violence, then we would need organized forces with political backing, and a few militia groups won't give us that. But we're a ways from that point yet, and God willing, will never come to it. But you will never convince me to put my faith in citizen militias.