Which Side is Most Violent? It Depends on Your Definition of Violent

The Facebook algorithm fed me the juxtaposed opinions below shortly after the Minnesota shootings of the state speaker of the house and her husband. My initial thought was that it was either a conservative or someone with a troubled mental history (though, anyone who behaves this way likely has troubles that go beyond one's political bent). It was not unlike my initial thoughts when Donald Trump was wounded last summer - that it was either a radical leftist or a troubled individual. Given what I've read about that shooter, it would seem more to be the latter.

But it got me to thinking. Why do those on the right believe that leftists are more violent, especially when the preponderance of such events tend to target people or facilities that would indicate the perpetrator leans right. Of the mass death events that appear politically motivated, from the Oklahoma City bombing to the Pulse nightclub to the church shooting in South Carolina, it would appear that most would appear to be acts of conservative violence. And it would seem the evidence bears that out - studies and reports from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the University of Maryland all found that deadly violence was more likely to arise from the right.

And therein might lie the perception held by the conservatives, as evidenced in the post above. As the saying goes, beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. So, too, might violence. Acts like the Congressional baseball shooter, or the Trump assassination attempt aside (no real ideology has been assigned to the latter), violence suspected of being leftwing tends to be non-lethal, consisting mostly of vandalism and injuries from thrown items. And even there, it is often difficult to suggest these are actually cases of leftwing violence. They are assumed to be because they often involve lower-income, migrant or minority populations that are associated with left wing politics. Yet, the violence may be driven more by personal circumstances - the beating or shooting of a group member, frustration over economic conditions or the frustrations of feeling otherwise powerless - than they are driven by ideology. 

Now, power is a relative thing. I certainly don't have the access that an Elon Musk or even a $10,000 political donor might have. But I have been to the homes of my state senator and a former U.S. Speaker of the House. I know people who know people, which makes me feel empowered politically, and more importantly, economically. I've never felt the need to get angry to be heard. But there are vast, vast swaths of people who feel nowhere near as empowered. Not only that, they often see themselves represented as responsible for their own plight. That they may express rage should come as little surprise. To suggest it's politically motivated to the extent it can be labelled left or right wing is probably a stretch. As I've heard said, hunger knows no ideology.

There is one more reason some might view the left as more violent. Right wing violence tends to, for lack of a better term, happen in a flash. A mass shooting, Oklahoma City, January 6. None lasted more than a day. Most took mere moments. But unrest fills our screens for days. The Rodney King riots lasted five days. The George Floyd protests seemed to last an entire summer. We humans tend to be bad at proportionality, thus we equate duration with intensity and conclude that those who acted longest acted worst.

I'll close by saying I do not agree or support violence or vandalism in any form as a means of protest. I find it counterproductive - and the evidence supports that claim, too. I believe that the numbers and moral standing of those speaking out is far more influential in bringing about change. But I also can differentiate between anger and madness. It's the latter that leads to lethal violence, and the evidence shows that is more common on the right.

When Do We Finally Say, "Enough!"?

We are told that comparisons to Nazi Germany are counterproductive, and I would agree, but how else is one to explain our concerns when years of dehumanization of immigrants by calling them vermin, snakes or scum, followed by forced deportations without due process and government exploitation of civil disturbances so closely mirrors the years of dehumanization of Jews, followed by Germany's forced deportations of "stateless" Jews in 1938 after Poland stripped citizenship from Polish Jews living abroad, followed by government instigated riots that came to be known as Kristalnacht in the wake of the reported murder of a German national living in Paris by a Jew - all which was greeted as rather ho hum by the general German public and world at large?

I've been asking since at least 2016 when is the time to put one's foot down and say, "Enough!" Is it when a politician first starts describing others as somehow less than us? Is it when the worst elements of a society - the racists, the white nationalists and others - begin to claim that politician as a kindred spirit? Is it when that politician achieves power and begins disregarding basic constitutional rights in the name of "the greater good"? Or is it once support for those undemocratic, unconstitutional, inhumane policies is so great that vigilantes who take the law in their own hands, killing protesters, become lauded as heroes?

All these things have taken place in the ten years since Donald Trump entered the political stage. And all of them took place in Germany between 1923 and the advent of WWII.

Most of us still get up in the morning, have our coffee, our warm shower, go to work and come home to our loving families. Life as we've always known it goes on, so we feel no great urgency to speak out or act. And those who do are derided as alarmists. Meanwhile, the normalization of the abnormal proceeds unabated.

All these things, too, have taken place in the ten years since Donald Trump entered the political stage. And, again, all of them took place in Germany between 1923 and the advent of WWII.

But when a president does everything listed above, when a president says he would be fine taking those same steps against U.S. citizens, when it's said by a president who demonstrates no understanding of the rule of law, let alone  any respect for the law, should we not all be speaking out?

If not, do we really understand what patriotism truly is and the responsibilities of citizenship that democracy demands? Or worse, do we really not care?