Columnists Megan McArdle, Jim Geraghty and Shadi Hamid discuss “what to make of political violence today” at the Washington Post. I thought that some of their observations were worth noting. Here’s Megan’s preamble:
Last week’s fatal shooting of conservative media personality Charlie Kirk has sparked conversations about the escalation of partisan disagreement into political violence. The podcaster’s slaying follows a trend of targeted attacks on political figures in recent years, including the killing of a Minnesota Democratic lawmaker and her husband, and the attempted assassinations of Donald Trump.
What can be done, if anything, to curb political violence? I’m joined by my colleagues Jim Geraghty and Shadi Hamid to discuss.
From Megan and Jim Geraghty:
Megan: That’s a good point, Jim. Every time one of these events happens, the political incentive is to mine it for partisan advantage by suggesting that this is somehow emblematic of the other half of the country rather than the act of a violent fringe. We’ve seen that on the left, which often blames right-wing extremism or hateful rhetoric for the actions of deranged loners — and that’s what the White House is doing too, with Trumpian fervor.
Jim: Yup. Just about every Democratic lawmaker has said the right things after the assassination. Plenty of left-of-center folks I know were shocked and horrified. And yet at the same time, we’ve seen leftists posting the equivalent of touchdown dances celebrating Kirk’s death.
That’s why I think that, rather than making anodyne general public pronouncements, it is incumbent on Democratic leaders to address their supporters specifically and for Republican leaders to address their. Generalized statements against violence will always be interpreted as only applying to the other guy.
I think this exchange among Shadi, Jim, and Megan is worth repeating:
Shadi: My worry is that because Democrats are so feckless as an opposition party, more disgruntled young men (and women) will give up on the political process. When people give up on legitimate politics, they’re more likely to resort to extralegal means to express their grievances.
Jim: That’s right. Ten or 11 consecutive “the most important election of our lifetime”s has convinced some people that the other side of the aisle wants to bring about the apocalypse.
Megan: It’s also convinced a lot of people they need to bring about a preemptive apocalypse for the other side — it’s much more thrilling to imagine you’re in the French Resistance or standing with the Minutemen at Concord. Are we LARPing our way into a civil war?
I also think that Jim’s mistaken here:
Jim: I’m hoping those in the enraged minority have people who care about them. Concerned friends or family who are willing to listen but say: “Dude, this is crazy talk. You’re not making the world a better place by shooting somebody because you hate what they believe in.”
Maybe things are different on the East Coast but here in Chicago Lauri Dann’s parents stopped short of trying to get involuntary commitment for her despite their daughter’s violent tendencies and Robert Crimo’s parents actually assisted him in obtaining a firearm. In other words the “people who care about them” can be part of the problem.
