On Shooting Taggers: Why Conservatives And Liberals Differ (Dennis Prager: Urban Scourge Alert)

Townhall.com ^ | 8/26/2008 | Dennis Prager

[goldstategop]

Earlier this month Andrew Sullivan, a well-known writer, once in the center, now on the left, nominated me for what is apparently his lowest badge of distinction for defending citizens who shoot to wound graffiti vandals, or "taggers," while committing their vandalism.

Under the heading, "Malkin Award Nominee," Sullivan provides a quote from my radio show:

"'So you will now say -- I hear the voice of an ACLU member -- 'Dennis, do you think that this guy should have shot these people spray painting graffiti on his shop?' To which my answer is yes. I do. Not to kill. Not to kill. But if he shot them in the legs or in the arms I would have considered the man one of the great advancers of civilization in my time. And that is what divides left from right. Because anybody on the left hearing this would think that this is barbaric whereas I consider not stopping these people in any way that is necessary to be barbaric.' -- Dennis Prager, on his radio show."

Mr. Sullivan provides no commentary because, as I predicted in the excerpt he cites, what I said is so obviously morally offensive to him, no commentary is necessary. It is self-indicting.

To those on the left.

Their differing reactions to graffiti vandals further clarify the philosophical differences between liberals and conservatives.

Reactions to graffiti on the cultural left -- not necessarily the political left, since liberal politicians must respond to public outrage or they are not re-elected -- have generally ranged from support to indifference.

Many on the left have long described graffiti as "urban art" and graffiti vandals as "artists." Even when not admired or even defended, most liberals regard graffiti in far less negative ways than do conservatives. Conservatives tend to regard graffiti as an assault on society, perpetrated by pathologically narcissistic lowlifes bent on undermining the foundations of higher civilization.

To personalize this for a moment, while I assume that graffiti troubles Sullivan, I strongly doubt it troubles him nearly as much as it troubles me. If it did, the odds are he would not be a man of the left.

Why are so many on the left not as angered by graffiti as most conservatives are? I would like to offer some possible reasons:

One is that liberals find it difficult to condemn the poor, especially poor members of ethnic and racial minorities. If rich white kids spray painted their names on university buildings, there would probably be a liberal outcry.

A second reason is that crimes against property tend to disturb the left less than the right, especially when "no one is hurt"; and graffiti is deemed by many liberals as a classic example of no one being hurt. That is why I suspect that most people on the left would express greater anger toward someone who lit up a cigarette in a mall or a restaurant than toward an inner city kid who spray painted his initials on neighborhood walls and signs.

A third reason is that conservatives tend to view higher civilization as more fragile than the left views it. Conservatives believe the line between civilization and barbarism is under constant assault and is not necessarily enduring. That is one reason the right tends to have a higher regard for the police than does the left. Conservatives see the police as "the thin blue line" that separates civilization from barbarians.

So, it is natural that conservatives would see graffiti as vandalism, as an undermining of the very notion of higher civilization, as a public scorning of the common good, as essentially an "F---- you" to society.

Liberals are far more inclined to see graffiti as a mere nuisance, or even as an example of the downtrodden trying to have a voice in a civilization that oppresses young people who are usually members of historically oppressed minorities.

To the conservative, graffiti is an assault on civilization; to the liberal, graffiti is the result of civilization's assault on those who paint the graffiti.

For those who share Sullivan's political and social values, the notion that someone would defend a man who shot and wounded graffiti vandals defacing his property is worthy of derision. Sullivan is so sure his readers have contempt for such a view that he felt it unnecessary to offer a word of commentary on what I said.

That is unfortunate. I would be interested to know how Sullivan regards taggers and what he would suggest be done to them if caught in the act of defacing property. Since most people suspect that calling the police would achieve little, if anything, what should be done?

My first wish is that taggers be arrested and punished. I also wish for world peace and a cure for cancer. But the real-life choice is almost always between taggers getting away with their vandalism and an irate citizen taking action. Given the destructive nature of tagging -- the moment one sees graffiti, one knows one has entered a largely lawless and violent environment where thugs terrorize innocents -- I prefer something, even if violent, rather than nothing be done.

I have no desire to see a graffiti vandal killed -- my position has always been that only those who cause death deserve death (that is why I oppose the death penalty for any crime except murder). But if enough taggers are wounded, their assault on civilization will decline dramatically. And if one accidentally dies? That would be a tragedy. But here is the bottom line: More innocent people will die if tagging is not stopped than if it is. Graffiti unchecked leads to worse crime.

Those who deface private and public property are not otherwise decent kids who are oppressed and not allowed any other form of self-expression. My sense is that the vast majority of graffiti vandals are headed toward, if not already involved in, a life of sociopathology, including violence.

Indeed, increasingly those graffiti vandals do engage in violence. Citizens who so much as flash their headlights or yell at them to stop have been shot and sometimes murdered.

As in so many other areas, with regard to taggers, right and left see life through opposing moral prisms. On the left, the tagger is viewed as society's victim; on the right, society is viewed as the tagger's victim.

[BlazingArizona]

The leftists have no respect of private property rights, so graffiti is no concern to them, as private property owners obviously obtained their property by taking it from the Native Americans, the Oppressed

Liberals may not care about urban graffiti, but they will care about graffiti in natural places. If we could get convenience stores designated as cultural monuments, we could perhaps elicit their concern.

[Roccus]

Pragers sentiment is almost right. However, his comment is stupid.

[BlazingArizona]

If I ever catch one I’m going to take their can of paint and coat them with it head to toe.

...By using it as a suppository.

[nathanbedford]

Liberals do not take graffiti as a serious offense because it is an offense against property. The Constitution takes the sanctity of property very seriously, at least as against offenses committed against property by the government:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If you get into a philosophical discussion with a liberal, perhaps in any college seminar course on government as I have for example, you will find the leftists and the leftist professors do not regard the right to own property as expressed in the Fifth Amendment to be an essential liberty in a free society. They certainly do not place it on the same exalted plane with the First Amendment rights of free speech, for example.

Liberals reluctance to support for the protection of property by the government extends to crimes even more heinous than graffiti. The Liberals have made it virtually impossible in America to shoot looters-at least to have the police do it. Those Korean shop owners in Los Angeles who were filmed shooting at looters were protecting their property and I applaud them. But they are very lucky they were not prosecuted.

On the whole Liberals despise property rights and pursue every contrivance to limit one's "bundle of rights" in one's own property. How can they do good if they cannot redistribute your property? How can they redistribute your property if your rights are so vested that the state must protect it against graffiti?

[Yosemitest]

NOPE!!! The worms’ gotta’ eat!

[rockrr]

Shooting them does seem a tad bit harsh. I’d be content to dip them in fluorescent pink and green paint and let ‘em go...;’}

[Redbob]

"Hey, we could compromise and load up a goose gun with rock salt and apply it to their backsides."

Tends to corrode the barrel; pinto beans work well, though.

The dried variety, not from a can...

[Billthedrill]

Well, Dennis, the reason you don't shoot to wound is that anywhere you hit somebody is potentially fatal. Tagging is repulsive but it isn't a capital crime.

The vast bulk of the offenders are self-centered adolescent males with no conception at all that anyone but themselves has any rights. Public floggings will do nicely.

[b9]

I agree with every word of Dennis Prager here.
Taggers should be afraid of being shot.

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

” Go buy a bucket of paint and cover the stuff up;”
The local teenagers tagged all the trees in my yard one night. Should I paint the trees green, brown, or what? You can’t Get the blue paint off the tree bark. Maybe I should just cut down the trees that beautify my lot, cuz if I try to sell, those trees say a lot about my neighborhood’s kids.

[Pontiac]

I don't believe one has the right to kill another human being to protect property. Under any circumstances. I do believe however, short of that, we are entitled to use all the reasonable force necessary to defend property.

I understand what you are trying to say but it is not a very realistic view of the type of crime in question.

Tagging is for the most part a crime committed by gang members. This crime is frequently committed by a crew of gang members.

If one was to try and prevent a crew of gang members intent on marking there territory (I equate tagging with a dog lifting his leg to a tree) with less than a show of lethal force I would suspect that a person attempting such an action would receive at least a sever beating.

[ketelone]

Oh, I think shooting them is really not necessary. Im pretty sure I could handle it with a nice left hook to the face.

[WildcatClan]

Yes, I would vote for monthly canings on the courthouse lawn.

[b9]

if I try to sell, those trees say a lot about my neighborhood’s kids.

How AWFUL for you and your beautiful trees.
I fantasize about running down taggers with my car, I really do. They destroy neigborhoods and property values and it could be STOPPED with enough people armed.

It's about time they feared for THEIR lives.

[Starwolf]

Consider a heavy barrel 22 rifle with sub sonic ammunition (match or hunting). Works great on all kind of varmits. Mine is good to considerable distance

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

And the thing is, I know who did it, but can’t prove it. They’re kids from decent families that have been corrupted by thug culture. I live in an upper-middle class neighborhood in Ohio. Yeah, our houses are only worth a 1/4 mil, but, in California, they’d be 2 mil houses. They keyed my car in my driveway last week. The cops are tryin’ to catch them. They want these little punks bad! Tons of complaints in our three block area.

[Starwolf]

unfortunately many of them are armed and they work in gangs. Sniping would be preferable and more effective that direct confrontation.

Another concept would be to find their “home mural” which is also a monument to their fallen members and dousing it with paint stripper...the ultimate disrespect.

[eclecticEel]

Public floggings will do nicely.

The finest thought on FR this night.

[Starwolf]

And the thing is, I know who did it, but can’t prove it. They’re kids from decent families that have been corrupted by thug culture. I live in an upper-middle class neighborhood in Ohio. Yeah, our houses are only worth a 1/4 mil, but, in California, they’d be 2 mil houses. They keyed my car in my driveway last week. The cops are tryin’ to catch them. They want these little punks bad! Tons of complaints in our three block area.

Get a good hide and wait for them. Low light video camera and zoom in on faces. Your call on a real time confrontation.

[Goldsborough]

If taggers keep killing people, they’re going to find themselves fair game in states where free men may go about armed.

“I wasn’t meaning to run into vandals but I did, so I yelled at them to stop and one as one turned it looked for all the world as if he were bringing up a gun. It was dark and so I wasn’t taking any chances and I pulled my handgun and I shot him until the threat was ended. Detective, haven’t you been following the news concerning how violent these taggers are becoming?”