So we have stand tough against what Trump is doing without letting it harden us toward the people we disagree with, while treating those opponents decently without letting it weaken us. This is going to take one hell of a balancing act.
The sort of dictatorships where all you have to do is shut up and obey may be soul-sapping, but at least it's easier.
I'm puzzled by this response — and in turn, by what you all stand for at The Argument. Defenders of political liberalism should applaud any effort to loosen the grip that illiberalism has on both political parties in the United States. Are you all defenders of political liberalism — the philosophical commitments to universalism, equality under the law, liberty, etc.? Or are you defenders of what gets called "liberalism" in the United States — aka, anything left of center on the political spectrum? After subscribing for a few weeks, I truly don't know. I hope to God it's the former.
Perhaps it's hard for you all to mark the distinction cleanly because you conflate a crackdown on the illiberal left — which has a genuine history of domestic terrorism, just as the illiberal right does — with a crackdown on Trump's opposition party. Yes, many illiberal leftists vote for Democrats — but including them in the party, and bestowing the honorific "liberal" upon them has clearly been the biggest brand mistake Democrats have made in the last 15 years. Every liberal democrat in the US needs to work to root out the left-illiberalism that has dominated the party's moral energies since the critical theoretic turn in the 1970's.
I agree we should wait for more information about motives. But when you say "if it turns out this killer was funded, trained, or indoctrinated by a specific group, the law should deal with them" I'm left wondering — "ok, then, is your disagreement with Rufo?" I'm guessing it would come down to two things: scale, and tactics. Scale should be targeted, and tactics shouldn't cross over into extra-legal grey areas. And of course, that all seems right. But then lead with that! Make that the story, and stop conflating issues that muddy the water and make it harder for normies to accept the Democratic party brand.
When you turn this into an oppositional thing, you make it harder to influence the consensus view in Washington — in turn making it harder to influence the folks who will influence the executive branch. Make no mistake, the radicals on both sides want division and escalation, and this piece falls into that trap. We have to be crystal clear here, and this piece is not that.
Thanks for writing out a lengthy reply. I think of our publication as defending small-l liberalism. Speaking only for myself — and some of my colleagues truly might not agree — I think the primary advocates for that in the 20th and 21st century have been left of center, though there have been and continue to be very important liberal strains on the parts of the right, especially when it came to articulating the value of free markets or (at least through the GWB administration) immigration.
With that out of the way: I think you are reading Trump — and the right-wing influencers I mentioned — more generously than they deserve. First, when the president talks about the "radical left," or when Rufo and Cernovich talk about NGO networks, they're not really talking about fringe actors. They're talking about the left and center-left writ large, including many fully mainstream Democrats. To the extent it even matters, they're not really making the "clean distinction" you imagine.
Second, I don't think it's the job of the government to root out nonviolent ideologies. It's one thing to make an argument, or prosecute a group that is actually breaking the law. (Likewise, I think it's fine to regulate conduct like racial discrimination in public and business contexts, because otherwise there's no such thing as equality of opportunity). But trying to clamp down on one part of civil society is another.
To put it another way: I thought it was fine for Biden to argue that MAGA Republicanism was a threat in a speech or prosecute the Jan. 6 perpetrators. If he had attempted to intimidate Republican funders through legal action and obliterate the Heritage Foundation, Hoover Institute, or America First Policy Institute, I would have objected. And I think anyone who shares small l-liberal values would feel the same. So no, I'm not excited about a government crusade against what it perceives as the "illiberal" left.
I would add that Trump has not earned the benefit of the doubt here. Look at how he has gone after universities, law firms, and private businesses that he perceives as being too liberal.
Plus, the shooter is most likely a lone wolf, if past is prologue. For Trump to immediately start blaming a vague cabal of left groups before we have any evidence this wasn’t a lone wolf attack shows he’s itching to use this to crack down on his opponents.
Good — I certainly agree that liberals should not be excited when their government cracks down on illiberalism in any way other than law enforcement. But we both agree that they should enforce the law, and I think we agree insofar as we're both committed to defending liberalism that we actually have to go on the offensive on left-illiberalism. In that project, we should welcome government crackdowns as long as they're legal. We might disagree on how aggressively they should enforce the law — and that's fine.
But I think our deeper disagreement is on how pervasive left-illiberalism actually is and what our role is as left-of-center liberals in aggressively rooting it out. It's tough because many of them are your readers, peers, friends, and old classmates. And many of them know not what they do. But it's your job as a publication committed to defending liberalism to eviscerate illiberalism wherever you see it. And there is an awful lot of it left of center.
Jerusalem quoted Locke on tolerance in her opening essay for the Argument. It might be nice to contrast that with the things Herbert Marcuse and his disciples said about tolerance in their work that has influenced so much left-of-center thought in the last half century. Unmasking that tradition is the work that will really help the Democrats repair their brand — not more criticisms of the Trump administration. That stuff is plentiful and undifferentiated. Readers can get it anywhere. You all have a higher calling, and cynically, that controversial stuff will get a lot more engagement anyway — from both sides.
Thanks for the reply. Definitely appreciate the back and forth here.
Hey Michael, good question — to understand the nature of violence on the illiberal left today, it's helpful to put it in historical context of the last 50 years starting with the weather underground and BLA in the 70's and 80's, then moving through ELF/ALF in the early 90's to more decentralized anti-fascist and anarchist activity in the 2000's through today.
Organized violent activity on the illiberal left tends to occur in the context of political protest (think, burning teslas and cop cars), while the plotted assassination attempts are now more often lone wolf type things (Hodgkinson, Ryan Routh, Quintez Brown, Mangione, etc.). Summer 2020 obviously saw a spike in property destruction and assaults on officers. Similar story w.r.t. immigration enforcement officers in the last year.
While the criminology literature is clear that fatal violence is more common on the far right, it is more commonly directed against the state on the far left — where it also rose dramatically during the first Trump administration. This paper is a good place to start for homicides, but under-represents overall unlawfulness on the left of center which skews towards nonlethal property damage and assault.
So sad. We have a president who fails to see the opportunity to bring some faith in our government to the fore by expressing sympathy and a need to come together as one people to oppose violence. Donald Trump's math is limited. He knows only division and subtraction. Sad.
As a history nerd it actually calls to mind Woodrow Wilson of all people. That man couldn’t accept an ounce of criticism.
I genuinely think one of the really destructive parts of Trump is not having a kind of head of state mode where he can be the national father figure the president usually has. He would have had a Covid bump and would have been much more popular if he could ever turn off this dangerous asshole Schtick.
Sharp, sober essay. The central paradox for me is the call for de‑escalation set against the Reichstag Fire comparison. Its rhetorical power is also its risk, escalating by reframing the administration through a 1930s authoritarian lens. It feels like a Catch‑22: how do you ring the five‑alarm bell without language that fuels the blaze?
I would agree that it is good to condemn political violence regardless of the person perpetrating it, but it really must be made clear that Donald Trump has been hugely influential in normalizing it and bringing it to the fore.
Since he began his campaign in 2015 he has done everything he can to trash norms, values and even basic decency. He accused Ted Cruz father of doing the JFK assassination, he mocked a reporter with a disability, he called immigrants and refugees rapists and murderers. The list goes on, and those examples were all from before his first election. Especially with January 6 and the later pardons, Trump has made clear that he supports political violence, so long as it is in support of him.
He will do or say anything, no matter how awful, incendiary or even downright false, so long as he benefits. When we ask “how did we get here?” there can only really be one answer: Donald Trump, and a right that was too afraid (and now gleefully refusing) to stand up to him and support basic American values.
Sounds to me that more focus should be on the rhetoric of FNMSNBC CNn OAN and such. Has Mr. Weissmanbeen in MSNBC and chastised the network(Fox News as well) for their I flamatory rhetoric?
People familiar with such crimes, whom I’ve seen interviewed, indicate that the assassin was a trained rifleman. His weapon was probably a hunting rifle. He was trained, probably informally. Perhaps he took courses at a local shooting range or some group that trains deer hunters, etc.
At first I had feared he was a military assassin, a sniper trained by the military. However, such a sniper would have used a different rifle, and probably at a longer range. Military grade assassinations can be carried out at 500 or 1,000 yards. This assassin was less than 200 yards away, which increased the chances of his being caught.
Still, two football fields says the assassin was well practiced in shooting/hunting.
As someone on Eric Zorn’s Substack noted, “Now they have their Horst Wessel.” I’m waiting for some Nazisinger to come out with The Anthem of Charlie Kirk, and to hear the NRA chorus singing it.
However, the shooter’s leavings do indicate that one can’t rule out the right wing provocateur theory. His talents smell like the NRA.
Question about what constitutes “liberal discourse.” Let’s say you know the Big Lie is false, but you vehemently proclaim it to be true. Does that count? Must your arguments be in good faith?
Charlie Kirk arranged buses to 1/6, but it’s unclear if he simply thought it would be a protest. He kind of waffled in the aftermath, but his organization eventually released a “violence is bad” statement. However, when he was called before Congress, he pled the 5th over seventy times.
He also put up lists of academics he disagreed with, who were then flooded with harassment. Not sure if he directly incited it. But this feels like he went past “liberal discourse” and perhaps did not fully deserve the Klein eulogy.
I’m glad to hear the Utah governor seems to be acting responsibly!
Excellent discussion of historical and present situations.
So we have stand tough against what Trump is doing without letting it harden us toward the people we disagree with, while treating those opponents decently without letting it weaken us. This is going to take one hell of a balancing act.
The sort of dictatorships where all you have to do is shut up and obey may be soul-sapping, but at least it's easier.
I'm puzzled by this response — and in turn, by what you all stand for at The Argument. Defenders of political liberalism should applaud any effort to loosen the grip that illiberalism has on both political parties in the United States. Are you all defenders of political liberalism — the philosophical commitments to universalism, equality under the law, liberty, etc.? Or are you defenders of what gets called "liberalism" in the United States — aka, anything left of center on the political spectrum? After subscribing for a few weeks, I truly don't know. I hope to God it's the former.
Perhaps it's hard for you all to mark the distinction cleanly because you conflate a crackdown on the illiberal left — which has a genuine history of domestic terrorism, just as the illiberal right does — with a crackdown on Trump's opposition party. Yes, many illiberal leftists vote for Democrats — but including them in the party, and bestowing the honorific "liberal" upon them has clearly been the biggest brand mistake Democrats have made in the last 15 years. Every liberal democrat in the US needs to work to root out the left-illiberalism that has dominated the party's moral energies since the critical theoretic turn in the 1970's.
I agree we should wait for more information about motives. But when you say "if it turns out this killer was funded, trained, or indoctrinated by a specific group, the law should deal with them" I'm left wondering — "ok, then, is your disagreement with Rufo?" I'm guessing it would come down to two things: scale, and tactics. Scale should be targeted, and tactics shouldn't cross over into extra-legal grey areas. And of course, that all seems right. But then lead with that! Make that the story, and stop conflating issues that muddy the water and make it harder for normies to accept the Democratic party brand.
When you turn this into an oppositional thing, you make it harder to influence the consensus view in Washington — in turn making it harder to influence the folks who will influence the executive branch. Make no mistake, the radicals on both sides want division and escalation, and this piece falls into that trap. We have to be crystal clear here, and this piece is not that.
Hi Blake —
Thanks for writing out a lengthy reply. I think of our publication as defending small-l liberalism. Speaking only for myself — and some of my colleagues truly might not agree — I think the primary advocates for that in the 20th and 21st century have been left of center, though there have been and continue to be very important liberal strains on the parts of the right, especially when it came to articulating the value of free markets or (at least through the GWB administration) immigration.
With that out of the way: I think you are reading Trump — and the right-wing influencers I mentioned — more generously than they deserve. First, when the president talks about the "radical left," or when Rufo and Cernovich talk about NGO networks, they're not really talking about fringe actors. They're talking about the left and center-left writ large, including many fully mainstream Democrats. To the extent it even matters, they're not really making the "clean distinction" you imagine.
Second, I don't think it's the job of the government to root out nonviolent ideologies. It's one thing to make an argument, or prosecute a group that is actually breaking the law. (Likewise, I think it's fine to regulate conduct like racial discrimination in public and business contexts, because otherwise there's no such thing as equality of opportunity). But trying to clamp down on one part of civil society is another.
To put it another way: I thought it was fine for Biden to argue that MAGA Republicanism was a threat in a speech or prosecute the Jan. 6 perpetrators. If he had attempted to intimidate Republican funders through legal action and obliterate the Heritage Foundation, Hoover Institute, or America First Policy Institute, I would have objected. And I think anyone who shares small l-liberal values would feel the same. So no, I'm not excited about a government crusade against what it perceives as the "illiberal" left.
I would add that Trump has not earned the benefit of the doubt here. Look at how he has gone after universities, law firms, and private businesses that he perceives as being too liberal.
Plus, the shooter is most likely a lone wolf, if past is prologue. For Trump to immediately start blaming a vague cabal of left groups before we have any evidence this wasn’t a lone wolf attack shows he’s itching to use this to crack down on his opponents.
Good — I certainly agree that liberals should not be excited when their government cracks down on illiberalism in any way other than law enforcement. But we both agree that they should enforce the law, and I think we agree insofar as we're both committed to defending liberalism that we actually have to go on the offensive on left-illiberalism. In that project, we should welcome government crackdowns as long as they're legal. We might disagree on how aggressively they should enforce the law — and that's fine.
But I think our deeper disagreement is on how pervasive left-illiberalism actually is and what our role is as left-of-center liberals in aggressively rooting it out. It's tough because many of them are your readers, peers, friends, and old classmates. And many of them know not what they do. But it's your job as a publication committed to defending liberalism to eviscerate illiberalism wherever you see it. And there is an awful lot of it left of center.
Jerusalem quoted Locke on tolerance in her opening essay for the Argument. It might be nice to contrast that with the things Herbert Marcuse and his disciples said about tolerance in their work that has influenced so much left-of-center thought in the last half century. Unmasking that tradition is the work that will really help the Democrats repair their brand — not more criticisms of the Trump administration. That stuff is plentiful and undifferentiated. Readers can get it anywhere. You all have a higher calling, and cynically, that controversial stuff will get a lot more engagement anyway — from both sides.
Thanks for the reply. Definitely appreciate the back and forth here.
What are "left illiberals" doing that is breaking the law and not being prosecuted, exactly?
Hey Michael, good question — to understand the nature of violence on the illiberal left today, it's helpful to put it in historical context of the last 50 years starting with the weather underground and BLA in the 70's and 80's, then moving through ELF/ALF in the early 90's to more decentralized anti-fascist and anarchist activity in the 2000's through today.
Organized violent activity on the illiberal left tends to occur in the context of political protest (think, burning teslas and cop cars), while the plotted assassination attempts are now more often lone wolf type things (Hodgkinson, Ryan Routh, Quintez Brown, Mangione, etc.). Summer 2020 obviously saw a spike in property destruction and assaults on officers. Similar story w.r.t. immigration enforcement officers in the last year.
While the criminology literature is clear that fatal violence is more common on the far right, it is more commonly directed against the state on the far left — where it also rose dramatically during the first Trump administration. This paper is a good place to start for homicides, but under-represents overall unlawfulness on the left of center which skews towards nonlethal property damage and assault.
https://ccjls.scholasticahq.com/article/26973-far-left-versus-far-right-fatal-violence-an-empirical-assessment-of-the-prevalence-of-ideologically-motivated-homicides-in-the-united-states
So sad. We have a president who fails to see the opportunity to bring some faith in our government to the fore by expressing sympathy and a need to come together as one people to oppose violence. Donald Trump's math is limited. He knows only division and subtraction. Sad.
As a history nerd it actually calls to mind Woodrow Wilson of all people. That man couldn’t accept an ounce of criticism.
I genuinely think one of the really destructive parts of Trump is not having a kind of head of state mode where he can be the national father figure the president usually has. He would have had a Covid bump and would have been much more popular if he could ever turn off this dangerous asshole Schtick.
Sharp, sober essay. The central paradox for me is the call for de‑escalation set against the Reichstag Fire comparison. Its rhetorical power is also its risk, escalating by reframing the administration through a 1930s authoritarian lens. It feels like a Catch‑22: how do you ring the five‑alarm bell without language that fuels the blaze?
I would agree that it is good to condemn political violence regardless of the person perpetrating it, but it really must be made clear that Donald Trump has been hugely influential in normalizing it and bringing it to the fore.
Since he began his campaign in 2015 he has done everything he can to trash norms, values and even basic decency. He accused Ted Cruz father of doing the JFK assassination, he mocked a reporter with a disability, he called immigrants and refugees rapists and murderers. The list goes on, and those examples were all from before his first election. Especially with January 6 and the later pardons, Trump has made clear that he supports political violence, so long as it is in support of him.
He will do or say anything, no matter how awful, incendiary or even downright false, so long as he benefits. When we ask “how did we get here?” there can only really be one answer: Donald Trump, and a right that was too afraid (and now gleefully refusing) to stand up to him and support basic American values.
Please correct the lines about the ammunition markings. Every publication who reported that has now said it’s unclear.
Sounds to me that more focus should be on the rhetoric of FNMSNBC CNn OAN and such. Has Mr. Weissmanbeen in MSNBC and chastised the network(Fox News as well) for their I flamatory rhetoric?
People familiar with such crimes, whom I’ve seen interviewed, indicate that the assassin was a trained rifleman. His weapon was probably a hunting rifle. He was trained, probably informally. Perhaps he took courses at a local shooting range or some group that trains deer hunters, etc.
At first I had feared he was a military assassin, a sniper trained by the military. However, such a sniper would have used a different rifle, and probably at a longer range. Military grade assassinations can be carried out at 500 or 1,000 yards. This assassin was less than 200 yards away, which increased the chances of his being caught.
Still, two football fields says the assassin was well practiced in shooting/hunting.
As someone on Eric Zorn’s Substack noted, “Now they have their Horst Wessel.” I’m waiting for some Nazisinger to come out with The Anthem of Charlie Kirk, and to hear the NRA chorus singing it.
However, the shooter’s leavings do indicate that one can’t rule out the right wing provocateur theory. His talents smell like the NRA.
Upping my request to remove the lines about “trans ideology.” Now that we have the markings, that appears to be completely false.
Question about what constitutes “liberal discourse.” Let’s say you know the Big Lie is false, but you vehemently proclaim it to be true. Does that count? Must your arguments be in good faith?
Charlie Kirk arranged buses to 1/6, but it’s unclear if he simply thought it would be a protest. He kind of waffled in the aftermath, but his organization eventually released a “violence is bad” statement. However, when he was called before Congress, he pled the 5th over seventy times.
He also put up lists of academics he disagreed with, who were then flooded with harassment. Not sure if he directly incited it. But this feels like he went past “liberal discourse” and perhaps did not fully deserve the Klein eulogy.
Charlie Smirk was an insufferable bigot.
I don't think the NSDAP response to the Reichstag Fire is the best or most apt analogy to MAGAs reply to the Kirk assassination.
The 1930 Horst Wessel assassination is more on the nose, to me…