Well he's obviously not a Tea Partier in any genuine sense. Let's start with that loud and clear. He clearly had an issue with mental illness of some sort - and that's the only thing this can reasonably be attributed to.Nevertheless, if you convince people that their country's charter of self-government is actually a charter of quasi-anarchy, they will interpret actual democratic self-government as oppression. If you convince people that our system of commerce is a system of theft because it's not conducted on the basis of a soft yellow metal, they will feel like they have been stolen from.
And when less stable minds feel oppressed and stolen from they're going to lash out.
So no, this wasn't a Tea Partier at all, but I still can't shake unease over all this. A movement that gives the beneficiaries of the status quo an opportunity to feel young and radical when they're actually being old and reactionary is a bothersome movement enough on its own. A movement that fattens party coffers and elects truckloads of politicos while claiming to reject politics is obviously frustrating.
But this is a movement that does all this at the expense of completely deconstructing and distorting some of the most fundamental principles of American society - liberty, self-government, the market, patriotism, and reason.
I'm not sure what to think. You can't put this on the Tea Party. But at the same time you can't not reflect on the Tea Party. It's a populist movement. Most participants are certainly sincere. But there's something fundamentally distortionary about it.
Thoughts? This may go a little far for some people and not far enough for others. It's just a first attempt to think through some of this.
*****
When I saw the infamous target list from Sarah Palin's PAC, I noticed Tom Perriello's name. Perriello is from Virginia and he's already had an attack on his family (but intended for him) by someone that was much more mentally stable and much more closely affiliated with the Tea Party.
If you convince people they are being oppressed and stolen from they will lash out. If they are actually being oppressed and stolen from, then fair enough. Some things merit a fight. But if you're just convincing them of this so you can get re-elected, we can't just ignore that as a society.
UPDATE: I won't be looking at this for the rest of the day and I won't be able to clarify what I thought was an obvious perspective, so let me say this one more time: if you cannot separate a discussion of the role of the Tea Party perspective from a claim of Tea Party culpability please try to refrain from commenting on this post.
Posts
A woman named Caitie Parker has been tweeting that she went to school with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' alleged shooter Jared Loughner and that he had met Giffords previously.
ReplyDeleteAlso," he was a pot head & into rock like Hendrix,The Doors, Anti-Flag. I haven't seen him in person since '07 in a sign language class" and "As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy."
Right - he's clearly got a confused mind.
ReplyDeleteAnd you also don't have to reach back to 2007 for the far-left stuff. One of his favorite books is still apparently The Communist Manifesto.
If you're reading me to be accusing him of being a Tea Partier I'm not sure how else to clarify my view that he is not. He is clearly very sick and he has absorbed Tea Party rhetoric on the Constitution and on gold. I also doubt that the Giffords target is a coincidence, but there's less direct evidence on that.
The point is, if you tell people they are being oppressed and stolen from they will act as if they are oppressed and stolen from.
Also - please try not to comment anonmyously on here. If you're having trouble with the blogger sign in, just use a pseudonym at the end of your comment.
"The point is, if you tell people they are being oppressed and stolen from they will act as if they are oppressed and stolen from."
ReplyDeleteDespite what you may deny, it is plainly obvious you are making a point that libertarian rhetoric can cause this kind of violence. Whether or not it was the catalyst for Loughner's actions, and it doesn't appear to be so despite the left's attempts to make the link, I think most libertarians agree that attempted murder, or violence in general, is not the correct solution.
Daniel, you try to link his stance on what he calls "new currency" in his weird videos to that of a gold backed currency. Call me biased, but I did not get that at all. He seemed to be linking currency to some kind of supernatural knowledge. If you can give me a specific example from his videos of his desire for a currency linked to gold, I would love to see it. Otherwise, you are guilty of the same kind of politicizing of a tragedy some of the left is guilty of doing right now.
While I think you have a point that rhetoric that claims people are being stolen from and oppressed can cause certain individuals to take unnecessary and deadly action, historically, that kind of rhetoric has been used by both sides of the political aisle for hundreds of years. Libertarian ideology, to my knowledge, stresses that lethal action should not be taken unless confronted with lethal action as well. Taxing may be considered theft, but it is not a direct threat to someone's life.
Accusing Tea Party rhetoric of causing this is a simplistic and reactionary conclusion. What won't be looked at is why Tea Party rhetoric like this occurs. It is obvious that the U.S. is going through a huge social and governmental change and it can't be expected that everyone remains complicit with that change. Hence the rise of the Tea Party.
While a mass murder like this isn't justified, reacting without consideration to the number of events that got us here is not the right solution.
Well many kinds of rhetoric can cause this kind of violence, with libertarian rhetoric being an important catalyst in this case.
ReplyDeletere: "I think most libertarians agree that attempted murder, or violence in general, is not the correct solution."
You will find precisely zero argument from me on this point.
re: "Daniel, you try to link his stance on what he calls "new currency" in his weird videos to that of a gold backed currency."
He talks elsewhere about gold. I'm not talking about the so called "new currency". I read him as emphasizing the Constitutional imperative for gold as legal tender, combined with a very funky free banking approach.
"Otherwise, you are guilty of the same kind of politicizing of a tragedy some of the left is guilty of doing right now."
Politicizing the tragedy? No. Don't turn this into that sort of discussion.
re: "Libertarian ideology, to my knowledge, stresses that lethal action should not be taken unless confronted with lethal action as well."
I'm not sure there is a single position on this. Some emphasize all-encompassing non-aggression more than others. This isn't the point. It's clear that Loughner's understanding of the response to all this isn't grounded in any philosophical libertarianism, so you belabor a point where there is no real disagreement.
re: "Accusing Tea Party rhetoric of causing this is a simplistic and reactionary conclusion."
It is indeed. Let me repeat: the Tea Party did not "cause" this. I'm not going to cower before the alter of political correctness and not talk about the role of these ideas in the episode, though, simply because you and I agree that this cannot be laid at the feet of the Tea Party.
When you're a schizophrenic you grasp for every available argument to justify your persecution mania. Hence, Communist Manifesto AND free banking.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is sad, political assassination is a rather rare event in the U.S., whereas incidents like this are not:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theagitator.com/2011/01/06/more-on-the-botched-drug-raid-in-massachusetts/
There is no Tea Party culpability, BTW. That's about as stupid as the arguments in the 1980s about how Dungeons and Dragons were leading to Satan worship or the evils of "backmasking." Or "Reefer Madness." I swear, I don't know which is worse - the conservative or the liberal versions of moral panic and paranoia.
ReplyDeleteI wrote something similar in Economic Thought. It comes down to libertarian ideology being inconsistent on the issue. Most libertarians don't actually believe killing politicians is right, but it still conflicts with their belief that killing is justifiable when aggression is used against them. If taxation is theft, then aggression must be used to force the tax payer to pay. It should technically be okay to kill the tax raising politician for the same reason it's okay to kill thief threatening your life. I think a normal person would probably ignore this inconsistency or rationalize that isn't inconsistent (even though I think it is), so I wouldn't be able to blame the tea party even if the shooter was a tea partier.
ReplyDeleteI think Bob Murphy noticed the cognitive dissonance in libertarian ideology in his latest post, but he rationalized it with a practical reason why you shouldn't try to fight the government with violence without really talking about why it isn't justifiable. Of course he's right that killing the child throws away any possible justification so I can't expect him to really dwell into it.
to kill a* thief threatening
ReplyDeleterationalize that it* isn't inconsistent
“Nevertheless, if you convince people that their country's charter of self-government is actually a charter of quasi-anarchy, they will interpret actual democratic self-government as oppression. If you convince people that our system of commerce is a system of theft because it's not conducted on the basis of a soft yellow metal, they will feel like they have been stolen from.”
ReplyDeleteEven the framers believed that “democratic self-government” could be synonymous with oppression. The two are not mutually exclusive, as you seem to imply. Furthermore, inflationary fiat money does redistribute wealth, so I am not sure how it can be perceived as anything other than theft. If you can argue otherwise, then you should have.
“And when less stable minds feel oppressed and stolen from they're going to lash out.”
Yes, and sometimes the “feelings” are justified, and those “feelings” have created historic moments leading to more freedom and prosperity. Of course, oftentimes, any rebellion—large or small—leads to innocent lives being lost and more government shackles (hence my own Burkean reluctance to violent rebellion). But, more pointedly, persons “lashing out” is not ipso facto morally wrong. I would bet most people can find at least one example of a political assassination that, by that person’s own moral lights, is not condemnable. (To be clear, Jared Loughner is a monster and his actions are atrocious.)
“If you convince people they are being oppressed and stolen from they will lash out. If they are actually being oppressed and stolen from, then fair enough. Some things merit a fight. But if you're just convincing them of this so you can get re-elected, we can't just ignore that as a society.”
You seem to believe that politicos are convincing the citizenry that the government is a band of thieves; nothing could be further from the truth. The politicos have embraced that rhetoric only because the constituents are already convinced, from their own experience. History and literature both attest to that fact that people, from all ages (including the American experiment), have guarded their income cautiously from government overextension. Additionally, cynicism of politics and politicians is incredibly old; plus, the idea that excessive taxation constitutes theft isn’t particularly novel or unique to libertarianism, either.
The government has pushed too far, and there is now a reaction to it. Hoping to save entitlements like Social Security and Medicare while denouncing spending is obviously a contradiction, but the visceral disgust at an out-of-control political process is palpable. The fact that our government seems irremediable (both because voters are “irrational” and because politicians are not properly subject to market discipline) is further evidence for the validity of libertarian philosophy.
Of course, one never hears of links of the Tea Party and everyday incidents of police brutality, government-waged war deaths, etc. In a sort of utilitarian calculus, even Jared Loughner can’t compete with the misery inflicted by government.
strangeloop -
ReplyDeletere: "The two are not mutually exclusive, as you seem to imply" - you misunderstand me - I've never thought nor implied that htey are mutually exclusive. Oviously democratic self-government can result in all manner of oppression. That's not what I've been talking about - my concern is that the mere exercise of it consistent with the Constitution is considered oppression by many of who have a more reivionist view of the Constitution. I'm not and never have made the claim that democracy is never oppressive.