Is violence in the streets a legitimate/moral political tool?

PeachyKeane said:

And Ahmari would say that it's thinking like that that will lead to Christianity being completely defeated and squashed out by the secular left. We are in a post-Christian America, and steps must be taken to restore God to a Godless nation.

Click to expand...

I think you're misunderstanding what Ahmari is saying and why he's saying it. It's entirely a reaction to the far left which has gained popularity by being either supported by the mainstream left or ignored when their tactics trample the rights of their political opponents.

The far left is, at its core, an movement against intellectualism. It's an authoritarian movement. Take a look at any of the self styled revolutionaries or "movement" leaders of the far left and try to find any instances where they debate anyone with an opposing view. I've never seen it....and as far as I can tell, it doesn't happen. If you disagree with them....they label you a bigot or racist, or if they're feeling kind....ignorant. They proudly respond to intellectual challenges with accusations that those challenges aren't being made in "good faith" (which is a dog whistle for dishonesty) or they simply inform those making intellectual challenges that they cannot be "bothered to educate you" as if they hold the superior position and there are no valid criticisms of their beliefs. They engage in classic fascist tactics of "newspeak" where they redefine words according to their agenda (like racism) and invent new words to denigrate or discredit their opponents (woke means intellectually superior regarding social issues, and words like "mansplaining" or "whitesplaining" are used to ignore the opinions of men and whites respectively....unless you agree with them of course). It's a movement that not only attempts to silence outside opinions....it completely any internal criticism of their ideas or values. There's plenty of examples of this as well (I don't even need to leave this forum to find examples).

So the question Ahmari is asking is "if these have become the tactics of our political opponents (and they are) what tactics must conservatives engage in to combat them?"

It's not hard to see why he comes to the conclusion that the right must likewise engage in the same behavior because politics is devolving from civility and respect for human rights to violence and oppression.

There are of course valid strategies to combat these tactics without devolving to authoritarian methods....but the right may have difficulty seeing them because they've spent far too long investing in politicians who are good at conservative rhetoric and preaching and not politicians who genuinely understand political theory and statecraft.

Ana the Ist said:

No...it doesn't.

Everyone has views that someone disagrees with...you do and so do I. If you aren't willing to stand up for me if I'm being beaten for my views....why should I or anyone else stand up for you when you're being beaten?

It's the difference between living in a civil society where we all have the right to express disagreements and living in a society where you're only allowed to express support for whomever is willing to commit the most violence (aka the worst of us).

Click to expand...

This is the point. Civility is a secondary value and should not be a priority in our society. We're in a culture war. Do you really think it is possible to find agreement without violence?

Ana the Ist said:

I think you're misunderstanding what Ahmari is saying and why he's saying it. It's entirely a reaction to the far left which has gained popularity by being either supported by the mainstream left or ignored when their tactics trample the rights of their political opponents.

The far left is, at its core, an movement against intellectualism. It's an authoritarian movement. Take a look at any of the self styled revolutionaries or "movement" leaders of the far left and try to find any instances where they debate anyone with an opposing view. I've never seen it....and as far as I can tell, it doesn't happen. If you disagree with them....they label you a bigot or racist, or if they're feeling kind....ignorant. They proudly respond to intellectual challenges with accusations that those challenges aren't being made in "good faith" (which is a dog whistle for dishonesty) or they simply inform those making intellectual challenges that they cannot be "bothered to educate you" as if they hold the superior position and there are no valid criticisms of their beliefs. They engage in classic fascist tactics of "newspeak" where they redefine words according to their agenda (like racism) and invent new words to denigrate or discredit their opponents (woke means intellectually superior regarding social issues, and words like "mansplaining" or "whitesplaining" are used to ignore the opinions of men and whites respectively....unless you agree with them of course). It's a movement that not only attempts to silence outside opinions....it completely any internal criticism of their ideas or values. There's plenty of examples of this as well (I don't even need to leave this forum to find examples).

So the question Ahmari is asking is "if these have become the tactics of our political opponents (and they are) what tactics must conservatives engage in to combat them?"

It's not hard to see why he comes to the conclusion that the right must likewise engage in the same behavior because politics is devolving from civility and respect for human rights to violence and oppression.

There are of course valid strategies to combat these tactics without devolving to authoritarian methods....but the right may have difficulty seeing them because they've spent far too long investing in politicians who are good at conservative rhetoric and preaching and not politicians who genuinely understand political theory and statecraft.

Click to expand...

I'm actually representing the views of many of those who reacted to Ahmari. If civility is off the table, and any tool should be available to us in order to decimate the left, then violence becomes a viable tool to ensure that Christianity and it's values not only remains acceptable in American society, but the cornerstone of it. It's about taking back the public square for Christ.

Oh, and neither Ahmari, nor any of the pieces that go with it make a distinction between far-left and left. It's just "the left".

tall73 said:

Another article to read:

What a Clash Between Conservatives Reveals

I might have to collect all of these and make a new op!

Click to expand...

From the article:
"But there is one more point to be explored here, and it involves not substantive political philosophy, but rather rhetorical style. If you are centrally a political conservative and you also happen to be a Christian, then perhaps you may set aside certain Christian commandments in order to achieve your primary ends. But if you are centrally a Christian and secondarily a political conservative, then you have certain obligations that you cannot ignore."

Fascinating article! I think I can see what the fuss is about now, and I'm not sure how to address it. I gave up Christianity long ago, but not all its values, because many of its values are universally good. According to the article, I'm likely to be a "pluralist" according to John Courtney Murray. I would never evangelicalize atheism, or deism, because it's clear to me many need a belief in a personal god to deal with their lives and be healthy-and I prefer people to be healthy. And since I don't know if they are centrally a Christian or not, I would not presume to address them over the issue. But yet, according to the article, I think I can spot those who are centrally Christian vs those who are centrally a political conservative. And it should be possible to rationally and ethically argue with the latter over cultural values. For those who are centrally Christian, I am not sure it is possible to "win a cultural war" with them without the resort to violence, because their underpinning on health rests on a belief in a non-rational abstract I have no way to address through conversation. So it's best to let these sort of people alone as long as they are not doing violence themselves.

PeachyKeane said:

Do you really think it is possible to find agreement without violence?

Click to expand...

What did Jesus say?

tall73 said:

I gave this some more thought. It is odd that several in the other threads did seem to be willing to support one group or another they identified. But in the abstract people seem reluctant to say that they would use violence for political reasons.

I wonder what accounts for that?

Click to expand...

I haven’t seen that here. And getting into a fistfight with someone you are [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed at for taunting you or yelling at you isn’t “using violence for political reasons,” it’s just people losing their cool.

tall73 said:

I don't know enough about that time period to say definitively. As a general rule I would only advocate violence for defense.

In any case, groups fighting each other in the streets is not quite the same as fighting the government you are under.

Is it your thought that the street violence is aimed towards a change of government? Certainly it is not out of the realm of possibility that some of the white supremacists would want to try to form an ethno-state. And if they are following Marxist principles it is true that some Marxists would advocate violent revolution.

Click to expand...

Marxists aren’t unique in believing violence can be necessary for change, pretty much all systems do, either to gain power or keep it. Our government does it every day.

Sparagmos said:

Marxists aren’t unique in believing violence can be necessary for change, pretty much all systems do, either to gain power or keep it. Our government does it every day.

Click to expand...

Actually there was a double standard in the 60's. It proved that violence begets violence. Peaceful youth protests were met with clubs and bullets compliments of the establishment. An establishment not intent on change but protecting their authourity, their sameness.

As a result the more radical angered by this fought back against the establishment with bullets and bombs. Thus the establishment originators of that violence reaped what they sowed. However in that case the rebellion against violence brought about change although in the end, the establishment as it always does destroyed itself as their evil deeds caught up with them.

Unfortunately today they have honed their skills and the evils of the last 19 years has gone unchallenged. The people are too complacent and fighting among themselves to ever stand up again until the whole house of cards eventually falls as it always has and the US becomes nothing more than a page in a history book.

PeachyKeane said:

This is the point. Civility is a secondary value and should not be a priority in our society. We're in a culture war. Do you really think it is possible to find agreement without violence?

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand what you're advocating.

If you're really equating this with war....then would a conservative be justified in gunning down every liberal protester in the street?

There's no reason we can't respect each other's rights and not resort to violence. People calling this a war sound like people who have never been in a war.

Sparagmos said:

Marxists aren’t unique in believing violence can be necessary for change, pretty much all systems do, either to gain power or keep it. Our government does it every day.

Click to expand...

No....our government doesn't "use violence to keep power every day". Our government has legitimacy gained from voters. They don't need to use violence to maintain legitimacy and people don't need to use violence to change the government. They can simply vote.

PeachyKeane said:

I'm actually representing the views of many of those who reacted to Ahmari. If civility is off the table, and any tool should be available to us in order to decimate the left, then violence becomes a viable tool to ensure that Christianity and it's values not only remains acceptable in American society, but the cornerstone of it. It's about taking back the public square for Christ.

Click to expand...

And who exactly are the conservatives engaging in political violence?

Oh, and neither Ahmari, nor any of the pieces that go with it make a distinction between far-left and left. It's just "the left".

Click to expand...

That's because the more moderate voices on the left don't denounce the extremism on their side. The right is consistently denouncing violence. The left on the other hand actually works with Antifa and it's ilk.

I could easily find a dozen instances of right wing politicians denouncing violent right wing extremism....it's hard for me to find one left wing politician denouncing Antifa or any other violent left wing extremists.

Given that many on the far left openly endorse political violence....and the center left is either too scared to tell them their wrong or also endorses political violence (I mean....you're endorsing it, right?)...what's the point in distinguishing between the two?

tall73 said:

I don't know enough about that time period to say definitively. As a general rule I would only advocate violence for defense.

Click to expand...

Fair enough

In any case, groups fighting each other in the streets is not quite the same as fighting the government you are under.

Click to expand...

You're kidding, right? Where do you think fighting your government takes place?

Is it your thought that the street violence is aimed towards a change of government?

Click to expand...

You made a blanket statement, I was testing it. That's all.