The problem isn’t “liberalism.” A liberal can have a civil conversation. A person could take a liberal position on some issues and conservative on others.
The problem is leftism. Leftists are not liberals. They gang up and harass you if you don’t agree with them. They riot, loot, and kill if they do not get their way. They stomp you if they feel offended or throw you into prison for offending them.
The Democratic Party is not liberal. It is leftist. It’s all about force.
I’m not saying every Democrat is violent. I’m saying the party has a long history of violence… and force.
In Sumner’s time, congressmen threw insults at each other. Sometimes, Sumner was the target, yet he never physically attacked anyone in retaliation.
What Brooks did was not self-defense. It is different from a president striking back against a foreign enemy who attacks us.
Depends on how you want to look at the problem. I don't want to get into a discussion about the difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism. It has become commonplace to regard liberal and leftist as interchangeable, and in our current times, they pretty much are.
In Sumner’s time, congressmen threw insults at each other. Sometimes, Sumner was the target, yet he never physically attacked anyone in retaliation.
Did anyone suggest he was diddling his slaves? (Yes, I know he didn't have any.) Suppose someone had insinuated he was diddling his children? Are those fighting words?
Sumner should have not crossed the line. He chose to cross the line, and he found out.
What Brooks did was not self-defense.
No, he was acting as a champion for a man who could not do it himself.