Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Comment About Mob Violence
Let me lay out my assumptions right up front, before making the point I want to make.
- The President didn’t incite violence. His comments were within the boundaries of appropriate political discourse, whether or not he was correct in the views he expressed about the election. (In fact, I’m sure he was partially, though not wholly, correct.)
- I categorically condemn mob violence, and this instance is no exception: everyone who broke the law should be charged, tried, and, if convicted, punished. Whatever the motives of the lawbreakers (and I don’t know who they are or why they did what they did), I reject any claim they might have to legitimacy in their actions. Lock them up.
There. I hope that’s sufficiently clear. Now here’s the point of this post.
For months, businesses have been destroyed by lawless mobs. Billions of dollars of damage have been done to the private property of American citizens as shops were burned, windows smashed, stores looted. Through it all, the President called for a restoration of law and order, and offered federal support in that effort. In each instance he was rebuffed.
Because the destruction of private property and livelihoods doesn’t matter to folks on the left.
The Capitol break-in didn’t endanger anyone’s livelihood: no one will go out of business because of it, no Senator or Congressman will miss a paycheck or lose his life’s savings because thugs broke in to the building and damaged the nation’s property. Democracy, the Constitution, and the nation were not at risk.
The optics were terrible. But the optics were also terrible when Mainstreet USA was burning; the difference is that we didn’t see that, because the left didn’t care, and so didn’t want us to care either.
By all means prosecute the thugs who broke the law in D.C. this week, and good riddance. But remember that, when it came to demanding justice for regular American citizens faced with the loss of their jobs, businesses, incomes, and savings in the hundreds of Antifa and BLM riots this past year, it was the President who was calling for an end to the violence and the protection of regular American citizens. And the left fought that at every turn, choosing to side with lawlessness and the mob.
So to anyone who couldn’t be bothered to stand up for regular American citizens all summer long — and that’s essentially everyone in mainstream news and every Democratic politician at the state and federal level: go back and report on the tragedy of all those shuttered businesses and destroyed lives before expressing your faux outrage over this most recent event. And explain to me why all those people didn’t matter while they watched their hopes and futures burn.
Published in General
I call hogwash.
The issue in dispute, widespread electoral fraud, is of great import. The last possible moment to secure a legal intervention was Wednesday. People gathered to express their opinion — to petition the government for the redress of grievances (to coin a phrase). Some people behaved badly and should be punished. But your formulation would ascribe to the organizers of legitimate and peaceful political events responsibility for the bad behavior of others, and essentially guarantee that the right to assemble would be restricted only to situations in which the stakes and passions are low.
Nonsense. The people can assemble and make impassioned speeches even when the stakes are high. The President did not call for lawlessness, and has no responsibility for the lawlessness of the small minority who behaved badly.
Leadership requires responsibility of one rhetoric and manner. Trump is not responsible for the mob’s criminal actions but he is responsible for incitement. As you can see his cabinet is abandoning him over it. Pence has not had a public statement defending his boss. In fact I don’t see a single Republican defending Trump. Not one. If Trump did not have a week or so left in office, I would agree that this is an impeachable offense. Serving as president is a sacred honor of which he disgraced.
I didn’t watch. Did he mention how CDC /Capitol police were opening doors and inviting protestors in ?
https://twitter.com/christina_bobb/status/1347596278583197698
I am waiting for Michael Yon to complete his report. He, I believe, is trustworthy.
OMG! Trump might even have revealed the vote fraud ! Then what would we NTs do ?
I know you to be a thoughtful person, so I doubt that I can persuade any more. You’re clinging to words like “incitement” with no specifics showing he called for any violence. You skipped by my question about why a lot of people were not “incited” while a small percentage were. I choose not to cast my lot with politicians who will head for the exits at the first sign of trouble.
No my opinion, and it’s only an opinion, this damage is limited to Donald Trump. No one else contributed to the incitement. It was Trump’s personality that drove this. It was Trump’s language. A month after he’s out of Washington, I think Republicans can distant themselves from him.
Years ago, before Mr. Yon was justifiably famous, I had a brief by pleasant email exchange with him while he was hunkered down somewhere in the Middle East. I think he’s a responsible reporter, though I have a vague memory of disagreeing with him about something a few years ago. I’ll look forward to his report.
Your lips to God’s ears…..
I assume the Antifa cadre will NOT be arrested, or if somehow they are, Kamala Harris will again contribute to bail.
No doubt it was in regards to the NT tendencies of the cannibal he was hunting.
By “conspiracy theories” I assume you mean vote fraud. I guess that make me a conspiracy theorist. How are you on the Russia Hoax?
Well I have said both yesterday and today I have no regrets for voting for him twice and supporting him for four years. I am not a NeverTrumper. It’s sometimes tough to be objective when going against the choir but I feel I have to on this. I laid out the case in my first comment here. I think there are direct links from his language, perhaps unintentional but still links, to what happened. He was the leader and he should have known better. Leaders have to take responsibility. As to your first paragraph in the reply, those are mitigating circumstances that could offset how to go forward, but they have nothing to do with his culpability to the incitement.
There was NO chance of legal intervention at that point- there was ZERO chance the vote would not be certified and if there was it would effectively end the Constitution. Trump’s tweets for Pence to do so we’re the straw that broke the camel’s back as far as his legitimacy. He needed to have rock solid proof of fraud and he never produced it. Not allegations, not statistical analysis (figure lie and liars figure) but incontrovertible evidence of 45,000 fraudulent voted appropriately spread in Az, Wi, and Ga. And that he never produced- I don’t like he outcome and I don’t like all the irregularities but w/o the aforementioned proof he was SOL. I don’t trust a Stacey Abrams as far as I could throw her ( and she is at least 200 lbs) but that isn’t proof.
Are you surprised at this ? Getting Trump out of office was the sole reason for the fraud and other risky actions. If we had a functional media this would have been very dangerous but the Media is an arm of the DNC.. The Capitol riot, which began DURING Trump’s speech not after, was an operation conducted by the same people who funded the vote fraud. There are more eyewitness accounts coming out but they will get the same treatment the vote fraud eyewitness accounts got.
The eyewitness account I heard from a caller to Sean Hannity said the Senate side was peaceful with no rioting. All the disturbance was on the House side and led by a small cadre.
Another NT rant.
Manny, I’d like to look more closely at our use of the word “incitement.”
Do you mean that he actually “incited” people to violence? Or do you mean that he “incited” people to passion, excitement, strong feelings, etc., as one does at a political rally?
We have to be free to express strong feelings, and to encourage those feelings in others, without being responsible, legally or morally, for the few who will behave badly when so motivated. We have to recognize a difference between rallying people to your side and telling people to commit acts of violence. Otherwise, we are sanctioning the the left’s narrative that words are violence, and therefore words may be suppressed as if they were violence.
I reject that. Show me where the President plausibly called people to act violently, and I’ll agree that he “incited” violence. Otherwise, I disagree.
I agree that it was improbable. I don’t think it’s correct that Congress lacked the authority to refuse to certify the votes. The question isn’t whether or not it was plausible that Congress would choose to do that, but rather whether or not the President, who is no Constitutional scholar, thought it might be plausible.
And no, I don’t think it would have “ended the Constitution” if they had done so, though it would have been a profoundly poor choice. Your comment, however, is consistent with the degree of hyperbole being bandied about concerning this event.
First thank you for your kind comment on me. I do regret being on this side of the argument. Gary Robbins can attest that I have been fighting him in support of Trump fir a number of years now. I am not a NeverTrumper. In fact I have been a fairly vociferous anti NeverTrumper.
Look at my first comment (#41). I piece together how Trump’s language can lead one to conclude that they were supposed to physically stop the election confirmation. Whether it was only a small section of the mob that pieced it together and acted is irrelevant. Some did and took him up on it. Perhaps the rest didn’t piece it together or did but didn’t act. Thank God. I wish this didn’t happen but it did. Trump has always been a loose cannon. It came back to bite him here. He really is a tragic figure.
So what, exactly, did he “incite?”
I think Trump is going to be exiled from the party, and from what I am seeing about 50% of the Republicans are going to follow Trump out of the party forming a new one. This will split the vote allowing Democrats to achieve large majorities and eliminating any chance of winning the presidency.
Another attempt at an ad hominem…..don’t you have any other tricks up your sleeve
That is why I said he incited the PROTEST- which he clearly did- not the riot.
I agree that it would likely be very hurtful, and possibly fatal for the near future, for the Republican party to deal harshly with President Trump. I hope the party does not make that mistake. (And I do think it would be a mistake.)
But the protest, absent the riot, was simply a peaceful political gathering.
So you’re saying that he incited a peaceful political gathering. Okay. I’m good with that.
I have a sneaking suspicion that he is not the first politician to incite a peaceful political gathering, and may not be the last.
Team Red of the Republican Party can survive and win if Team Orange is firmly rejected, just as Team Reagan won in 1980 only 6 years after Team Nixon was firmly rejected in 1974.
It’s impossible to predict the future — impossible both for you and for me — but my own suspicion is that we will lose millions of staunch Trump supporters if the party deals harshly with Trump. I am a Republican, and I wanted anyone but Trump in 2016, but even I will be disgusted with my party if it does not treat the departing President with respect.
You speak with confidence that is unwarranted. We now have the White House and both houses of Congress in Democratic party control, a potentially extraordinarily dangerous situation. We don’t know what will happen, but it ranges from “not much,” if Democrats are stymied by their own party, to “pretty much catastrophic” if they manage to fundamentally shift the constitution of the courts and the Senate through extraordinary actions. That’s a very high risk situation for us to be in.
Prudence would suggest that we do our best not to risk a schism within our own party that will leave us crippled.
More than 90% of Republicans voted for Trump in November. Common sense should tell us to move cautiously, and not let our personal loathing of a President millions actually like quite a lot prompt us to do something self-destructive and foolish.
I suspect most Republicans in 2024 will treat Trump like the Democrats treated Dukakis in 1988- they will say a little. Not only b/c of the last week but also b/c he will not really be an issue (Biden/Harris will supply those) and no one wants to inflame feelings. But if it ends up a two way race in the primary with Cruz vs almost anyone else it could become an issue.
I think you’re mistaken — Trump is no Dukakis — but we’ll know soon enough.