A BIPARTISAN SAMPLING of the worldās greatest perpetrators and enablers of political violence has rushed to condemn political violence following the shooting attempt on former President Donald Trump on Saturday.
āThe idea that thereās political violence ā¦ in America like this, is just unheard of, itās just not appropriate,ā said President Joe Biden, the backer of Israelās genocidal war against Palestine, with a death toll that researchers believe could reach 186,000 Palestinians. Bidenās narrower point was correct, though: Deadly attacks on the American ruling class are vanishingly rare these days. Political violence that is not ālike thisā ā the political violence of organized abandonment, poverty, militarized borders, police brutality, incarceration, and deportation ā is commonplace.
And condemn it, most everyone in the Democratic political establishment has: āPolitical violence is absolutely unacceptable,ā wrote Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., on X. āThere is absolutely no place for political violence in our democracy,ā tweeted former President Barack Obama, who oversaw war efforts and military strikes against Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan with massive civilian death tolls; Obama added that we should āuse this moment to recommit ourselves to civility and respect in our politics.ā āThere is no place for political violence, including the horrific incident we just witnessed in Pennsylvania,ā wrote Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.
The chorus of condemnation was predictable and not in itself a problem: Thereās nothing wrong with desiring a world without stochastic assassination attempts, even against political opponents. But when you have Israelās minister of foreign affairs, Israel Katz of the fascistic ruling Likud Party, tweeting, āViolence can never ever be part of politics,ā the very concept of āpolitical violenceā is evacuated of meaning.
Youāre right and the down votes are reactionary. The alternative to the state having a monopoly on violence is even more violent parties. The benefit of a monopoly is violence resting with the state is that the violence is subjected to checks and balances. Perhaps those checks and balances arenāt as restrictive as we might like, but the alternative is unchecked violence.
Obviously we prefer no violence, and yes violence is abused by parties within the state. But thatās a separate issue. If we dismantled the monopoly, violence would skyrocket and what little regulation our institutions enforce would vanish. Thatās objectively worse
The world is a nasty place, solutions being unsavory doesnāt preclude them being the best option.