Posted on 08/14/2017 12:32:05 AM PDT by Kaslin
One sentence stands out as a unifying principle in the aftermath of a bleak weekend in Charlottesville. After that, everything devolves into the pandering and posturing which are the daily din of the current age. So here’s that statement, and a Q and A flowing therefrom:
The intentional vehicular murder of protesters Saturday was an act of domestic terrorism, seemingly motivated by supremacist hate. Such acts need to be identified as such by every American, starting with the President of the United States.
There. Now the complexities:
Q: If that’s so obvious, why didn’t President Trump dwell at length on the racist/supremacist/Nazi flavor of that violence? Is it because he secretly harbors those views, or basks in the welcome support of those who do?
A: No. It is because he knows his haters stood ready to beat his brains in if he didn’t exude precisely the right flavor of revulsion, not just toward violent racists, but toward the ill-defined “alt-right,” or portions of his own staff who have been conflated into supremacist, even Nazi status by the left. His calculation was to deliver broad criticisms of bigotry and hate, which could be criticized by no one, thus driving his most inflamed critics crazy.
Q: How did that work out?
A: Not well, due to one problem: Basic human decency, as well as proper presidential decorum, required a calling-out, by name, of precisely the ideology that led to the murder of Heather Heyer. This was a particularly glaring omission from a President who spends a lot of time (rightfully) busting the chops of anyone reticent to identify radical Islamic terrorism by name. Other Republicans did it effortlessly; they should have been led by the President of their party.
Q: So did critics go after him with skill and precision?
A: Of course not. Democrats in particular overplayed their hand exponentially, suggesting Trump has a Klan base he wishes to satisfy, and a racist heart he wishes to conceal.
Q: But isn’t it problematic that a portion of the Trump base harbors those poisonous views?
A: Of course. Every politician would love to be supported by nothing but virtuous souls. But Republican voter rolls will contain the occasional racist, just as Democrat voter rolls will contain the occasional Communist and a bevy of violent radicals they rarely distance from at all.
Q: So is Charlottesville evidence of a growing wave of active racism rearing its head, energized by Trump?
A: Hardly. Most of the protests taking place at confederate monuments around America are not foremost about race. They are a response to the voices who seek to erase every vestige of the Confederacy as if failure to do so equates to wistful nostalgia for slavery. If a black man walked into a crowd at a Robert E. Lee statue and said, “I’m no fan of this guy, but I don’t think we should erase every Southern monument,” he’d be met with handshakes.
Q: So are there non-racist reasons to support leaving the monuments alone?
A: Of course there are. Most of the people arguing against their removal do not wish the South had won the Civil War.
Q: But if the monuments are becoming a rallying point for actual Nazis and supremacists, isn’t that a reason to dismantle them?
A: This was a point made by National Review’s Rich Lowry and others, and it is highly regrettable. You don’t let a sliver of idiots determine public policy on monuments, or anything else. If a broad and thoughtful debate leads to the removal or relocation of some statue or another, that’s one thing; knee-jerk haste is another.
Q: “A sliver?” How widespread are the people who embody the actual racism and virulence on display in Charlottesville?
A: A tiny minority, and it continues to shrink. An unfortunate by-product of the Trump ascendancy is that the micro-culture of ugliness within his base feels a spark of energy of late, bringing them out of the caves into which they had been chased in recent decades. This is how you get idiots like David Duke on video talking about the Charlottesville protests as “fulfilling the promise of Donald Trump.” (After the President’s Saturday condemnation of bigotry, Duke lashed out at Trump for “attacking” the original protesters.)
Q: So what’s the best thing President Trump can do now?
A: Show up a little late with what he should have shown up with at the outset—a specific rebuke to racists, and a clear statement that while some of them may support him, it does not mean he supports them.
Q: And what’s the best lesson for the nation?
A: That while our society’s racial enlightenment has been a remarkable journey, not everyone has traveled that path. When real hate is discovered, there should be no delay in identifying it and denouncing it by name.
But we should also be aware that the vast majority of Americans have long displayed exactly that behavior, and there are Trump-haters afoot, trying to paint him (and thus his millions of voters) as partners in that vile intolerance. This cheap political opportunism must also be resisted at every turn.
Was the car owned by the 20 year old who got arrested? Why would any 20 year old ram such a car into a crowd? I mean it looked like a brand new expensive car and one would be proud to own it and go crazy if there would be even a tiny scratch on it.
Because the BSM has to relabel folks so they can be pushed off into a “two minutes of hate” corner and be destroyed. So the day before (Friday) the BSM was saying “alt-right” but by midnight Friday they were “White Nationalists” and by Saturday afternoon they were “White Supremacists”.
There was an excellent article yesterday about activism. Specifically marching, etc. the author pointed out that this isn’t something you do to change minds. It is something you do to show your power and intimidate. The Trump administration could stop the violence by crushing the people who are violent and demonstrating that they DON’T have the power anymore. Why Antifa is tolerated I don’t know.
There isn’t any need for the President to say much more than to express condolences for the victims and that the matter is under investigation and will be handled in accordance with the law by the justice system.
In other words going across the board in condemnation was the right thing to do.
But this was a “peaceful” protest, doncha know...
It was those “evil” permit carrying demonstrators that started it all.
This narrative was written a loooong time ago, waiting for the match to light the fire.
This has zero to do with Trump. Just the next smear on the list after the Russia Russia Russia narrative collapsed spectacularly.
I stand with Trump now more than ever.
This event was staged with 2 leftist groups attacking each other. NAZI’s are socialists, as is the Antifa group and BLM.
WELL IT APPEARS WE’RE GOING TO WAR.
Rarely distance?
I think the correct description would be "avidly embrace." Hasn't their rhetoric since Hillary's loss been all about urging people to violence, and then blaming Trump for it?
It sure seems like the media is focused on the thought crimes of a mass of unknown people over the actual crimes of individuals.
It seems to me that Obama did that routinely. No matter what happened, he was quick to blame "racism", and it worked out well for him: he set back the cause of peaceful coexistence between people of different races for decades. And we are seeing the fruits of that long labor in events like what happened in Charlottesville.
The same freaks want to remove Christmas, American flags and God.
We need Beauregard to RICO everyone and find their funding,or just ask the NSA for their dossiers!
Excellent point to reference Obama playing the “race card” as the universal answer to all issues. Your final sentence is the sad result. Thanks for bringing that context to the discussion.
Yes the President should limit himself to facts and not try to taint the investigation, he was smart not to make a “police acted stupidly” comment.
IMHO Trump did and said the correct things.
There have been KKKers, Neo-Nazis, etc forever, but they ceased to be a political force quite some time ago. They are a set of impotent and dysfunctional (or even mentally ill) people whose moment of glory is being out with their tiki-torches. But what has made them look more important and given them some gloss of justification (self-defense). is precisely the unopposed violence of their ideological opposites, the BLM and Antifa crowd.
Obama spent eight years whipping up black hostility to and fear of whites, as well as hostility towards law enforcement, and of course the white exploiters of the black resentment movement, such as Occupy, got in on the act too. Many of the Antifa placards in Charlotte had “revcom” printed at the bottom, meaning the Revolutionary Communist Party, a radical group that has been causing trouble for years.
Law and order has got to be restored and applied equally; no more “hands off” when black rabble rousers and white anarchists are out there burning down neighborhoods and beating passers-by. For years the white-power nutcases were pretty tame because they knew they had become sort of a laughing stock, but I think seeing the largely unopposed and even praised violence of the left has made them feel much more justified and has encouraged violence and aggression across the board.
No doubt about it. Soros is setting us up to be like Germany in the 1930's pitting violent leftists against other violent leftists mislabeled as being on the right. The outcome is good for Soros whether it is the fascist or communists that take over.
The only way out is to reject all violence as Trump did. It is very simple, either you support peace or you don't. If you show up with bats at a peaceful protest you are violent. If you show up in a vehicle to run down anyone, you are also violent.
I'm not "showing up" at any "protest." But if you attack me or my family ANYWHERE at ANY time I will, if I can, blow your brains out in the name of "peace."
Who is the guy you are talking about? It looks to me you didn’t even read the op-ed.
“The intentional vehicular murder of protesters Saturday was an act of domestic terrorism”
Assumes facts not in evidence. Everything else can be disregarded.
L
Same reason that violent communists (KPD) were tolerated in Germany in the 1930's The people reject facism whether corporate facism or socialist facism. That's really a minor distinction because even Obama would outsource his death panels to giant corporations. Trump rejects state control of any sort. He rejects violence. He rejects the deep state banana republic that Obama created. He can and will prosecute violent individuals in Antifa, but he will definitely not go after them politically.
Perhaps he will be pushed aside by an American corporate fascist who will go after Antifa as a whole. That would be a bad outcome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.