VIOLENCE AND INTIMIDATION ARE THE ENEMIES OF FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY

I don’t mean to get into partisan politics, and I hope it doesn’t sound this way. Instead, my concern is about the nature of our discourse and its inevitable destructive implications.

The poisonous discourse is not limited to what some might call the “deplorables” or the “rabble.” It has entered into our elite halls of academia:

·       Georgetown security studies professor Christine Fair ignited controversy starting September 29 when she called Kavanaugh’s defenders “entitled white men justifying a serial rapists’ arrogated entitlement,” who “deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps.” She concluded by suggesting “we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine.” https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/georgetown-sends-prof-who-wished-death-on-republicans-on-research-leave-out?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=1b75027e78-Daily%2520Headlines%2520-%2520U.S._COPY_352&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-1b75027e78-401443397

Such talk might be considered a crude joke, if it wasn’t taken seriously by hordes of young people using violence and intimidation instead of the democratic process to get their way.

In the wake of the Kavanaugh confirmation, instead of accepting the results of what had once been agreed upon as a democratic process to settle differences, destructive and divisive rhetoric still abounds. Anger and destruction and dissolving the glue that had once held us together:

·       Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s executive vice president Dawn Laguens advised supporters to “unleash your rage by making yourself heard every day. And especially Election Day.” The group’s former CEO Cecile Richards retweeted a quote urging women to “stay angry” because “you will need all your anger now.”

If they are unwilling to accept the system of justice which had once defined us and had paved the road to peace and advancement, what is to take its place? Mob rage and anger! Does this mean that we should now base our system upon coercion, intimidation and threat? Will this create a better world? Is there no concern to maintain a system that had once enabled a people with divergent opinions to live in peace and trust that justice would prevail?

·       Ariel Dumas, a writer for CBS's "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” tweeted, “Whatever happens, I'm just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh's life."

This statement is very illuminating. Essentially, it is saying, “If I don’t get my way, I want the opposition to suffer” and “My agenda is even more important than others’ lives and any principle of fairness.”

·       Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-HI, the Judiciary Committee member who previously said Kavanaugh’s claim of innocence lacked “credibility” because he’s “against women’s reproductive choice,” refused to answer CNN host Dana Bash’s question if “run[ning] senators out of restaurants, go[ing] to their homes” is “going too far.” https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/just-glad-we-ruined-kavanaughs-life-pro-abortion-left-responds-to-supreme-c

This too is illuminating. It reflects the belief that any form of coercion or intimidation is legitimate to bring about a desired political result. However, this reasoning neglects to consider how others will respond to such provocations. If they do not believe that the justice system will adequately address the threats of violence and intimidation, they too will be tempted to take the law into their own hands.

The use of such tactics places everything that we value in jeopardy. This reminds of a discussion I had had at Columbia University with Marxists who were advocating revolution. I asked, “Are you advocating violent revolution?” They were. However, they reassured me that they would only take out a very small percentage of the ruling class. However, they didn’t seem ready to consider the inevitable – that those they were planning to take out would also respond with violence. Besides, at best, it seems that civil wars are unnecessary; at worst, suicidal.

Likewise, it seems that the advocates of violence and intimidation are unwilling to count the costs and to consider the good things that they are placing in great jeopardy.

To make matters worse, many politicians and commentators are unwilling to denounce this rhetoric or even the violence and intimidation. According to Fox News and the video of Monday’s edition of “Cuomo Prime Time,” the CNN host admitted that some members of Antifa:

·       … “covered their faces, confronted police and berated journalists.” Cuomo condemned their actions as “wrong,” but argued that “all punches are not equal.”

Although Cuomo claimed that Antifa’s violent actions were “wrong,” he went on to defend them:

·       “If you’re a punk who comes and starts trouble in a mask and hurt people, you’re not about any virtuous cause. You’re just somebody who’s going to be held to the standard of doing something wrong," Cuomo said. “But when someone comes to call out bigots and it gets hot, even physical, are they equally wrong as the bigot they are fighting? I argue no.”

Along with the many who are now resorting to almost any methods to get their way, Cuomo has also made himself judge and jury. In his estimation, if his opposition are “bigots,” they deserve even violence.

This same logic has even taken control of our institutions of “higher learning.” If speech is deemed “politically incorrect,” it deserves to be shut down and the speaker banned or deprived of employment.

Tolerance of viewpoint diversity is an endangered species. The historian, Edwin Scott Gaustad, quotes perhaps our most secular Father to this effect:

·       “Almighty God hath made the mind free.” It follows therefrom that mankind should do all that it can to keep minds unshackled and un-coerced. Let us consider, Jefferson noted, that if an all wise and powerful God restrained himself from coercing either the bodies or the minds of men and women, how utterly absurd it must be for “fallible and uninspired men” to arrogate to themselves the right to exercise “dominion over the faith of others…Be it enacted,” therefore, “that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever.” One will suffer in no way for his or her religious opinions; on the contrary, all persons “shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.” And whatever their opinions, this will in no way affect their citizenship or their rights. (A Religious History of America, 119).

The Founding Fathers understood that, if we are to live together, we must be civil and tolerant of diversity – not a very profound insight. However, today many believe that they can build the good society by eliminating those they regard as “bigots” or “deplorables.” Evidently, the enemies of diversity regard themselves as the “good and enlightened ones,” but these entitled ones have always left a litter of mangled bodies in their wake.