Balkinization: John Bingham on Racial Equality

Comments:

When SPAM reads this post, I'm sure his brain will tingle with this from Gerard's quote:

"But these Democrats are whining through the streets, ...."

Bingham was a Republican, the Party of Lincoln. That's not the Republican Party of today with Trump at its head. And the Democrats Bingham referred to are not the Democrats of today's Democrat Party. Parties change over time. Context is indeed important. SPAM deals in "con text." The Charlottesville protesters can be substituted for "Democrats" in the excerpt I quote.

I haven't checked if there exists a monument to Bingham but the Charlottesville protesters might wish to take it down as being in conflict with their agendas. Now let's hear from our very own Muppets [apologies to Jim Henson], Bert and Brat.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 10:50 PM

"Bingham lived two more years and died in Cadiz on March 19, 1900. Bingham was interred in Union Cemetery in Cadiz. In 1901, the citizens of Harrison County, Ohio erected a bronze statue honoring Bingham in Cadiz." http://www.ohiocivilwarcentral.com/entry.php?rec=1015

You can see it at http://www.harrisonnewsherald.com/?p=10872.

# posted by

Larry Koenigsberg : 11:37 PM

Shag:

Someone is feeling defensive. In any case, feel free to let us all know when the Democrats stop engaging in government racial discrimination and the GOP starts.

Same as it ever was.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:40 AM

Implicit footnote to post [see my book].

# posted by

Joe : 11:09 AM

Yes, it's obvious that SPAM (aka Yankee Doodle Dandy) is defensive, defending Neo Nazis, White Supremacists, the KKK, White Nationalists, Alt Right and other hate groups protesting in Charlottesville. But SPAM (aka Yankee-born libertarian) is alongside President Trump, whom SPAM (aka [fill in the blank]) over and over again labelled Trump during the 2016 campaign as a fascist as SPAM was shilling for the grounded Cruz Canadacy: it takes one to know one.

Apparently, even though it occurred in SPAM's lifetime, the civil rights movement following Brown (1954) in the 1960s and Nixon's Southern Strategy in the 1968 campaign, continued by Republicans since, including in the 2016 campaign, seems in need of constant reminding: during SPAM's lifetime his Republican Party was not Lincoln's party. Oh, liberty is fortunate that SPAM cannot pass on his genes.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 11:24 AM

Over at Volokh Conspiracy, someone is having a drink right now.

# posted by

Dilan : 12:27 PM

"In any case, feel free to let us all know when the Democrats stop engaging in government racial discrimination and the GOP starts."

"On Tuesday, hours after President Donald Trump refused to blame white nationalists for the violence in Charlottesville, a federal court ruled that congressional districts drawn by Texas Republicans after the 2010 election were enacted with “racially discriminatory intent” against Latino and African American voters.

This is the seventh time since 2011 that a federal court has found that Texas intentionally discriminated against minority voters, through its redistricting plans and strict voter ID law. This repeated finding of intentional discrimination means that federal courts could once again require Texas to clear any changes to voting laws or procedures with the federal government—a requirement that was in place until the Supreme Court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act in 2013."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/08/texas-republicans-intentionally-discriminated-against-minority-voters-court-rules/

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 12:54 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Joe : 1:02 PM

Mr. W:

What precisely was the "discrimination?"

Democrats used to argue the VRA firbade states from diluting the minority vote and required the formation of majority minority districts. Now that white voters have largely abandoned the Democrats, they claim majority minority districts are discriminatory if they do not disperse minority voters to maximize vote for Democrats. Pure politics, not discrimination.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:50 PM

Bart's bastardizing the history somewhat, but his core point is actually true.

The coalition that used to hold the VRA together was made up of (1) Democrats, especially minority Democrats, who wanted to see more majority-minority districts that would elect minorities into office, and (2) Republicans, who would benefit from concentrating minorities in majority-minority districts.

That coalition has now fractured, with Democrats now coalescing around the position that concentrating minority voters is harmful to their interests, and many Republicans moving to the position that the VRA is bad for business generally and focusing more on imposing barriers on voting by traditional Democratic constituencies that might have failed preclearance were Section 5 still in force.

I still think that the only way around this problem is to simply apply a disparate impact test to Fifteenth Amendment violations. We're never going to get a renewed Section 5 of the VRA in this partisan environment, and lots of things that Republicans are trying now are disenfranchising significant numbers of minority voters.

# posted by

Dilan : 2:08 PM

"On Tuesday, hours after President Donald Trump refused to blame white nationalists for the violence in Charlottesville"

That's quite the lie there, Mista Whiskas. What he refused to do was pretend that only the white nationalists were at fault.

# posted by

Brett : 2:28 PM

So, it is "quite the lie" to say he "refused to blame white nationalists" by refusing to "pretend that only the white nationalists were at fault."

He didn't blame the white nationalists. He said blame can be spread around. It's like saying such and such person was to blame for losing the game. The coach replies: "no, I'm not going to blame Slim for losing the game, it was a team effort."

So, yes, he refused to blame them. He blamed a general "both sides." Doesn't seem like "quite the lie" to me. I will not even try to judge what he said on merits. I'm merely addressing the labeling.

# posted by

Joe : 2:56 PM

Dylan: The coalition that used to hold the VRA together was made up of...

Your description of the original coalition in favor of Majority Minority districts misses the white Democrat establishment, who saw these districts as legal gerrymanders to elect minority Democrats in rural areas.

As the white vote shifted to the GOP, the Republicans saw these districts as legal gerrymanders herding Democrat voters into a handful of districts.

As the shift in the white vote accelerated since 2010, the white Democrat establishment turned hard against these districts in order to maximize vote of the shrinking Democrat base in the heartland states. The white Democrat establishment courts naturally went along.

None of this is "discrimination."

I still think that the only way around this problem is to simply apply a disparate impact test to Fifteenth Amendment violations.

What is the disparate impact of a majority minority district?

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:16 PM

Bart:

A majority-minority district isn't a disparate impact. It could be a racial gerrymander (unconstitutional), but it isn't a disparate impact.

Where your disparate impact test would be applied is to vote suppression tactics, such as discriminatory ID requirements, etc.

For instance, if a legislature passes an ID law that defines a gun permit as a permissible ID but excludes an ID produced by a welfare office or a public university with the same standards of accuracy, that should be unconstitutional. Or if they don't locate any places to obtain ID's in black parts of the state. Or manipulating polling stations and poll closing so that only inner city voters get shut out.

# posted by

Dilan : 3:39 PM

Dilan:

Gotchya. Disagree, but understand.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:45 PM

"So, yes, he refused to blame them. He blamed a general "both sides." "

Good lord, read that yourself. How the hell can you blame both sides without having blamed one of the sides? Were the neo Nazi/white supremacists some third side?

The objection here isn't that he didn't blame the parade organizers. It's that he didn't ONLY blame them. You want to pretend that they held a war and only one side fought.

But the Antifa make no bones about being dedicated to violently "no-platforming" anybody whose speech they don't like; The neo-Nazis might have gone to Charlottesville to march in a cause you didn't like, but the Antifa went there for no other purpose than to get violent.

# posted by

Brett : 3:48 PM

"but excludes an ID produced by a welfare office or a public university with the same standards of accuracy,"

See, there's the problem here: University ID don't normally have remotely the same standards of accuracy as, say, a concealed carry permit. The university isn't concerned that you're who you say you are, they're just concerned that you're the person the tuition was paid for.

Now, you can claim that CCW levels of accuracy are over-kill for voting, but the levels of accuracy aren't likely to be the same. You don't typically have to undergo an FBI background check to get a student ID.

In cases where the requirements are the same, though, you've got a good case.

# posted by

Brett : 3:53 PM

Query: Does the public have access to information on those who have concealed, open or just regular gun permits?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 4:04 PM

Query: Is Brett aware of Trump's body (or bawdy) language when he's (a) reading off a teleprompter or (b) or speaking from his heart?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 4:07 PM

Brett, the quote was from the linked source, not mine. That's why I put it in quotations.

Bart, like most things discrimination has intent component. Distributing minorities into districts with the aim being to dilute their votes is discriminatory.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 4:26 PM

How the hell can you blame both sides without having blamed one of the sides?

If I say that "both sides were to blame for Pearl Harbor", I have effectively absolved the Japanese of blame. If I go on to say that there were fine people among the bombers and that they just wanted to protest the sanctions FDR had imposed, well.... context, you know.

# posted by

Mark Field : 4:54 PM

How the hell can you blame both sides without having blamed one of the sides?

This is yet another case of Brett being upset because his narrow usage of language is not accepted. I used an example involving a sports team to show a common usage of "to blame" so that when you single out ["to blame white nationalists"] it means something different than saying both sides did it. I yet again don't want deal with specifics.

neo-Nazis might have gone to Charlottesville to march in a cause you didn't like

Does anyone like the cause of neo-Nazis around here?

# posted by

Joe : 4:59 PM

There is no analogy whatsoever with communist and Nazi gangs battling one another on the streets of Charlottesville and WWII. Antifa and BLM are not the US military.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 5:24 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Joe : 5:29 PM

Since Dilan posted a late response regarding GM's draft article ...

the concern about using a "dead" provision etc. was not specifically the issue. It was the nature of the provision and its application today. I question if it truly is "dead" and its application would not be "pure ideology" because current well understood textual and other analysis (such as what an abridgement of the right to vote entails so forth) could be applied. As with the Emoluments Clause, current events might bring unexpected novel applications, including underused provisions.

It part of the genius of the Constitution.

# posted by

Joe : 5:31 PM

Analogies are really tough for so many movement conservatives.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 5:31 PM

"If I say that "both sides were to blame for Pearl Harbor", I have effectively absolved the Japanese of blame. If I go on to say that there were fine people among the bombers and that they just wanted to protest the sanctions FDR had imposed, well.... context, you know."

Not really. Saying "both sides", however, is a locution you use when there is roughly equal amounts of blameworthy conduct on both sides.

For instance, one might say something like "both sides are to blame for the NFL strike". And what that would mean is not that the owners, or the players, should be off the hook, but that both the owners and the players engaged in roughly equivalent magnitudes of improper or unreasonable conduct, which in conjunction resulted in the strike.

Trump's statement wasn't wrong because it didn't blame white nationalists. It did. But it implied that white nationalists' responsibility was roughly equal to that of the protesters (a point he re-upped in yesterday's press conference), rather than correctly stating that the white nationalists were far more to blame for what happened, because of their obnoxious ideas, the nature of their protests and rhetoric, and their side was the only side that was driving cars into protesters, even if there was some mild violence by counter-demonstrators.

(And as a side point, while I wouldn't use the formulation that "both sides were to blame for Pearl Harbor", as one side conducted a sneak bombing attack and the other did not, the chickens of decades of United States evil and imperialism in the Pacific definitely came home to roost on December 7, 1941, and we certainly should have learned (but didn't) that imperialistic policies outside our legitimate sphere of influence lead to blowback that kills Americans. All of these linguistic debates are a distraction from actually learning from America's mistakes, which doesn't happen very often.)

# posted by

Dilan : 5:35 PM

"the concern about using a "dead" provision etc. was not specifically the issue. It was the nature of the provision and its application today. I question if it truly is "dead" and its application would not be "pure ideology" because current well understood textual and other analysis (such as what an abridgement of the right to vote entails so forth) could be applied. As with the Emoluments Clause, current events might bring unexpected novel applications, including underused provisions."

Well, I don't think the Emoluments Clause should be dusted off by courts either. That's a purely political question that can be considered by a relevant congressional committee in an impeachment investigation.

And yes, it's dead. If it's never been applied in 150 years, it's dead as a doornail. We don't need well-meaning liberal law professors carelessly lighting fuses underneath dormant but explosive parts of the Constitution just because they don't like current legislative trends.

# posted by

Dilan : 5:37 PM

I think joe's analogy works. It would be reasonable to say the coach's statement effectively takes the blame off the single player.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 5:38 PM

If Pearl Harbor had traveled across the sea to attack Japan, you might even have a point.

Keep in mind the Antifa traveled to Charlottesville for the explicit purpose of violently attacking the demonstrators. They don't even pretend otherwise. Violently attacking people who disagree with them is the organization's very purpose!

# posted by

Brett : 5:42 PM

GM's analysis can be used by Congress as well, if someone thinks it is a purely political question, which again is not settled here yet.

GM is a self-proclaimed conservative, but whatever, the Constitution has loads of provisions, and new applications might be warranted if time make them sensible, even if it will in some fashion be "explosive" or not. We should make a drinking game of the number of rhetorical flourishes here ("carelessly" -- it's a law article).

Anyway, I'm not going to say my analogy is the ONLY way to use the term. My core point is that Brett's argument it was some blatant lie is overheated. To follow a theme.

# posted by

Joe : 6:05 PM

Yes, how terrible that there are organizations whose entire purpose is to attack the KKK and Nazis. BTW, it's great to see you jumping in on the side of the KKK, Brett. That's the sort of thing you were born to do. I'm just surprised that you weren't there in person.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 6:07 PM

"The university isn't concerned that you're who you say you are, they're just concerned that you're the person the tuition was paid for."

Well, no. Looking it up (VA and Texas, since the current conflict happened in VA and TX id laws were under court challenge), both appear to require government issued identification to obtain a student id. They are not just concerned about money (e.g., you can pay the tuition in person) because id is a sort of entrance card to the campus. They need to be concerned about the safety of the people and physical plant.

# posted by

Joe : 6:08 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Mark Field : 6:54 PM

If Pearl Harbor had traveled across the sea to attack Japan, you might even have a point.

Keep in mind the Antifa traveled to Charlottesville for the explicit purpose of violently attacking the demonstrators. They don't even pretend otherwise. Violently attacking people who disagree with them is the organization's very purpose!

The Nazis weren't (most of them, anyway) native to Charlottesville. They came from across the country too, so that doesn't seem relevant.

The purpose of the Nazi march was to proclaim white supremacy. Torchlight parades were staples of Nazi Germany. Many of the Nazi marchers wore Hitler memorabilia or tattoos. They carried swastika flags. They chanted antisemitic slogans and at least some of the spokespeople were vehement in their contempt for black people. They supported ethnic cleansing. They came armed and bragged about their readiness for violence.

In contrast, most of the counter-marchers whom I saw were peaceful, albeit loud. Sometimes they interrupted Nazi speakers, and I saw one shove Jason Kessler (the guilty party was immediately arrested). I didn't see much other violence, but I understand there was some shoving and fist fights.

The Nazis killed one entirely innocent person and injured 19 more. They beat one man with poles and other implements. There may have been other unprovoked attacks by them, but it's hard to say. From what I've seen, any violence by other parties, including Antifa, paled in comparison.

And that's the point I was making about Pearl Harbor. Sure, people who seem to enjoy making anti-American arguments can complain about "US imperialism" (in the context of a surprise attack by Imperial Japan for the purpose of expanding its empire, no less!). But the relative share of blame was so disproportionately one-sided in that attack that any "both sides do it" rhetoric merely serves to absolve the truly guilty party. And that's what Trump has done in Charlottesville.

Note that I'm putting aside Trump's other comments which lend more context to his "both sides were guilty" nonsense and reinforce the conclusion that he's actively supporting the Nazis.

# posted by

Mark Field : 7:13 PM

"And that's the point I was making about Pearl Harbor. Sure, people who seem to enjoy making anti-American arguments can complain about "US imperialism" (in the context of a surprise attack by Imperial Japan for the purpose of expanding its empire, no less!)."

I made it CLEAR that one side launched a sneak attack and the other did not. Japan was the party in the wrong on Pearl Harbor day.

But we spent decades trying to impose ourselves as the dominant military power of the Pacific, including building bases, annexing territory, blocking trade routes, engaging in low level confrontation with other military powers etc. NOBODY should have been surprised that Japan, which after all is an island nation in the Pacific and had far more right to be a power there than we did, finally snapped.

And here's the thing-- other nations' imperialism doesn't justify us following in their footsteps one bit. If anything, what has happened to other empires should have been a cautionary tale for Americans. But we are so filled up with our BS about saving the world and being a force for good and everything else, it never works that way, and we keep getting our people killed.

Having said all that, Mark basically has the Charlottesville issue right. There actually were some low level violent left-wing protesters, which Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times and others have reported on. But NOTHING comparable to driving into a crowd of protesters, holding torchlit Klan-like rallies, and chanting racist and anti-Semitic slogans.

And in that sense the Pearl Harbor analogy is correct. United States' policy in the early 20th Century in the Pacific has much to criticize, but we didn't launch any sneak attacks comparable to what Japan did on December 7, 1941. It's just on two different levels.

# posted by

Dilan : 9:24 PM

"GM is a self-proclaimed conservative, but whatever, the Constitution has loads of provisions, and new applications might be warranted if time make them sensible, even if it will in some fashion be "explosive" or not. We should make a drinking game of the number of rhetorical flourishes here ("carelessly" -- it's a law article)."

"Carelessly" to the consequences. Do you realize what would start happening if we started having the courts take congressmen away from states?

I wasn't saying his ANALYSIS was careless (though I'm not impressed with it, it looks like law office history in the extreme). I am saying that he is careless to the consequences of the can of worms he is opening.

Letting sleeping dogs lie is a very good legal philosophy. Highly underrated.

# posted by

Dilan : 9:29 PM

courts take congressmen away from states

Or, the court can determine the specific law in place is unconstitutional and Congress will have to find a new way (perhaps with a minor tweak) to have the process in place accomplished. Or, Congress -- as Rick Hasen warned them before Shelby regarding the VRA -- could themselves ahead of time deal with the situation. GM specifically noted that he didn't mean necessary actual use of the penalty.

There is a provision in the Constitution. Not ignoring it because maybe something bad might happen & dealing with it can be accomplished fairly easily is not a bad philosophy either.

# posted by

Joe : 9:50 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:50 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:52 PM

The analogies between Charlottesville and WWI as well as Antifa/BLM with the allied militaries are absurd on their face.

The Axis and Allies were nation states with militaries; the Nazis/KKK and Antifa/BLM are street gangs who do not amount to a pimple on the body politic of a nation state.

The Allies were relatively liberal democracies; the Nazis/KKK and Antifa/BLM are totalitarian groups - fascist and socialist, respectively.

The Axis invaded the Allied nations; both the Nazis/KKK and Antifa/BLM invaded Charlottesville.

The Allied militaries were defensive forces; Antifa/BLM spent their entire existence attacking others and destroying their property at venues ranging from international gatherings, universities and African American neighborhoods.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/826336/Hamburg-g20-protests-what-is-Antifa-demonstrations-protestors-Welcome-to-Hell
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/
http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/07/Black-Lives-Matter-Reuters-640x480.jpg

At Charlottesville, video and media reports show Antifa/BLM attacked not only the Nazis/KKK, but also the press and the police. Note when watching videos: It is easy to ID the Nazis and Klan. Antifa generally wear bandanas so the police cannot ID them for prosecution and often carry red flags because they are generally radical socialists or communists. The BLM people often wear gear with their group name on it.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/19685/watch-video-shows-violence-antifa-charlottesville-robert-kraychik
https://youtu.be/pigApYqAqs8
https://youtu.be/iaPoGvNoVqI
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/08/12/protesters-draw-blood-toss-urine-virginia-white-supremacist-rally/561939001/
https://twitter.com/DanLamothe/status/897992264529715200
http://www.dailywire.com/news/19673/ny-times-reporter-admits-antifa-protesters-james-barrett

Can anyone recall a Nazis/KKK march or demonstration which resulted in violence absent the presence of leftist "counter-protestors like Antifa/BLM?

Progressive and Democrat hypocrisy here is rank.

Progressives and Democrats falsely claim conservative and Republican silence about or excuses for the Nazis/KKK means they approve or at least condone those groups and their acts.

In fact, progressives and Democrats are the ones who are silent or making excuses for Antifa/BLM violence because they approve of these groups and their acts.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:53 PM

Can anyone recall a Nazis/KKK march or demonstration which resulted in violence absent the presence of leftist "counter-protestors like Antifa/BLM?

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 10:53 PM

Yes. World War 2 and the Civil War. That's why KKK and Nazi marches are now met with counter-protests.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 11:00 PM

BB:

That is precisely the false excuse Antifa gives for its violence. You would not happen to be a member?

Historically, the communists and national socialists waged street battles across Germany for years.

The Democrats created their KKK terrorist arm after losing the Civil War.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:11 PM

That is precisely the false excuse Antifa gives for its violence.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 11:11 PM

Nothing false about those wars at all. They're actually documented in lots of history books.

Also, many of the original KKK were former confederate soldiers.

So go fuck yourself, you racist piece of crap.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 11:17 PM

For an eyewitness view of the role of antifa in Charlottesville, please have a look at this column by Charlottesville resident and legal commentator Dahlia Lithwick.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/08/what_the_alt_left_was_actually_doing_in_charlottesville.html

She writes: There were, as it turns out, a great number of Charlottesville locals present to witness the violence and lawlessness on display in this town—my town—last weekend. I asked local witnesses, many in the faith community, every one of whom was on the streets of Charlottesville on Saturday, whether there was a violent, club-wielding mob threatening the good people on team Nazi. Here’s what I heard back:

How many steps are we from armed white supremacists being organized into a militia by some leading political figure? Already, "According to a poll conducted by two academic authors and published by The Washington Post, 52 percent of Republicans said they would back a postponement of the next election if Trump called for it."

# posted by

Larry Koenigsberg : 12:34 AM

From your link: "It was basically impossible to miss the antifa for the group of us who were on the steps of Emancipation Park in an effort to block the Nazis and alt-righters from entering."

Doesn't seem to occur to her that they were legally entitled to enter. Even if they hadn't had a parade permit, it was a public park. So, even though she feels self-righteous, she was engaged in a criminal act.

# posted by

Brett : 8:00 AM

Query: Is dyslexia contributing to President Trump's "unclear" policies domestically and internationally?

By the Bybee (expletives deleted), there is no doubt that our dynamic dyslexic duo, Brat and Bert, continue to stand by their man.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 8:47 AM

I think the main takeaway here is that the left feels fully justified in committing criminal acts to oppose their foes, and emboldened that they can get away with doing it.

What we're watching here is a preference cascade; The political violence last year, which seldom had any legal repercussions for the people who engaged in it, has made it clear to violently inclined leftists that they aren't alone, and that they can "punch a Nazi" without ending up in the slammer.

So they're going out and doing it, in ever increasing numbers. Which emboldens ever more of them. Classic preference cascade.

This would be problematic even if they restricted it to real Nazis. (Of which there are only a few thousand in the US.) But when you combine it with the fact that they pretty much regard ANYBODY who disagrees with them as a "Nazi", it gets really ugly, really fast.

I fully expect that in the coming years it's going to become very difficult to hold any sort of rally for conservative candidates or causes, outside very 'red' areas, without violent attacks taking place. And at some point idiots on the right are going to decide that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and reply in kind.

I don't know that it will reach the level of actual warfare, but something like the Irish "troubles" is the best case scenario, IMO.

# posted by

Brett : 9:01 AM

I would think a main takeaway would be watching hundreds of Neo-Nazis feeling emboldened enough to hold a torchlight vigil at UVA...

I wonder, who are the 'very fine people' who would attend such a rally?

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 9:23 AM

That was an impressive display for Brett: stating the exact opposite of the truth with such precision.

# posted by

Mark Field : 9:28 AM

The kind of people who are expecting to be attacked, and looking forward to defending themselves with excessive vigor, I would assume. Mind, if nobody attacks them, everything is likely to be peaceful.

Want to lay odds on nobody attacking them?

Mark, identify the point that was the opposite of the truth; Are you claiming that their wasn't a great deal of political violence last year? This year, too; It isn't the usual inauguration that has over 200 jailed for felony rioting.

Or maybe you claim the Antifa aren't violent? Even they don't claim that.

# posted by

Brett : 9:34 AM

Just peace-loving, anti-Semite chant yelling, torch carrying, salute giving Neo-Nazis, huh?

Very fine people, indeed.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 9:39 AM

Even if they hadn't had a parade permit, it was a public park.

If the entering was part of the protest, they very well might not have the right to be there without a permit.

I think the main takeaway here is that the left feels fully justified in committing criminal acts to oppose their foes, and emboldened that they can get away with doing it.

The main takeaway here is your lack of perspective and continue concern for some specter of "the left," here highlighting a single thing about a group of counterprotesters stopping people from entering a park.

Mark Field explained in detail the two sides. The white supremacists here didn't merely come here to peacefully protest. They came to instigate [if blocking a park entrance triggers someone to cry "UNFAIR!," won't take much apparently] and actually directly violently hurt people. Not just block entrance to a park. Not just flash their large guns. Not just say things like reference to "fags" or such. All that they did. Actually beat people up. Imagine that some might want to protest this, maybe stop them from entering a park.

I was listening to a gay rights program and the hosts said they weren't a big fan of the specific counterprotestor group in question. But, they noted that in this case it wasn't merely some "conservative candidate." Or "idiots on the right." Mark Field spelled out what is specifically involved here. Brett ignored it, since he rather focus on victimhood and cries of "the left" (always some spector) being unfair.

Mark Field didn't say all the counter-protestors did nothing. He cited a person who was arrested for illegal touching. Not seeing "the left" thinking it is "fully" acceptable to break the law. One should have a tad bit of perspective. Civil rights protests in the 1960s sat down at lunch counters against the local law. Some civil disobedience involved that sort of thing. It is a blunt technique that must be used carefully -- even many on "the left" find that problematic in various cases.

Anyway, I repeat, in answer to a previous remark:

neo-Nazis might have gone to Charlottesville to march in a cause you didn't like

Does anyone like the cause of neo-Nazis around here? But, again, they didn't just "march in a cause" anyway.

# posted by

Joe : 9:41 AM

Look, Larry's link to eyewitness accounts had people casually admitting to committing felonies. Violently trying to keep people from entering a public venue is a crime, do it in concert and you're violating federal laws originally used to go after the Klan.

Those people were there to commit crimes, and felt no guilt over it, or even concern over admitting they'd done it.

That is a very scary development, unless you want our politics to be a blood sport.

# posted by

Brett : 9:52 AM

Brett, a bunch of people linking arms and singing hymns to keep Neo-Nazis out of their neighborhood may be a technical violation of law, but your specter you conjure over it is pretty overwrought, don't ya think?

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 9:56 AM

I can only assume Brett hasn't watched the Vice video, which lays out the Nazi attitude towards violence pretty clearly. Also, you know, 1 killed and 19 others injured by the murderer. Plus the Nazis severely beat at least one other person. I've yet to see evidence that any Nazi suffered anything comparable, nor that any of the "fights" (most of them were handbags at 20 paces) were started by the counter-protesters (aside from the one incident I mentioned above).

# posted by

Mark Field : 10:01 AM

Brett:

This is a political twofer for the left. They can play both their fascist and race cards at the same time against conservatives and Republicans.

Those cards are much less effective if they are forced to acknowledge that many socialists and African Americans there were part of the violence rather than passive victims.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:20 AM

Neo Nazis and the KKK are domestic terrorist groups with not only a long history of terroristic violence but also a murderous present. In the last ten years more murders linked to such groups than there were ISIS related murders. Imagine if an ISIS group mustered a few hundred people to march armed and waving ISIS flags for a night rally at UVA. Somehow I doubt we'd find the same tone from people like Brett and Bart.

These Nazis have rights, and I think it's good to denounce 'antifa' violence, but these are not 'very fine people.'

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 10:25 AM

Mr. W: Brett, a bunch of people linking arms and singing hymns to keep Neo-Nazis out of their neighborhood may be a technical violation of law...

Please. Spare me the kumbaya horse crap.

Atifa and BLM invaded Charlottesville armed with sticks and clubs, chemical weapons like mace and tear gas, bags of urine, firemaking equipment, and even aerosol cans converted into flamethrowers. They used all of these weapons against not only the Nazis/KKK, but also the media and police. These attacks are felony crimes, which is why the Antifa thugs generally go to battle masked with bandanas.

Those who lie and make excuses for communist gangs are complicit in their crimes.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:29 AM

Mr. W: In the last ten years more murders linked to such groups than there were ISIS related murders.

This should be interesting.

Feel free to list murders committed in the United States by the Nazis and KKK over the past ten years.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:32 AM

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/aug/16/look-data-domestic-terrorism-and-whos-behind-it/

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 10:35 AM

"Atifa and BLM invaded Charlottesville"

I think even Brett got we were talking about the counter protesters described in Larry's article.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 10:37 AM

I should add that the Nazis assaulted at least 2 reporters. Taylor Lorenz was one, I don't know the other.

# posted by

Mark Field : 10:38 AM

http://time.com/3934980/right-wing-extremists-white-terrorism-islamist-jihadi-dangerous/

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 10:42 AM

SPAM (aka Yankee Doodle Dandy) tries to comfort Brett:

"This is a political twofer for the left. They can play both their fascist and race cards at the same time against conservatives and Republicans."

But SPAM (aka Yankee-born libertarian) conveniently forgets that he, SPAM (aka [fill in the blank]) during the 2016 campaign in shilling for the Cruz Canadacy had over and over referred to Trump as a fascist. But SPAM has since swallowed the leader of the Republican Party that he had so accused of being a fascist. It takes one to know one.

By the Bybee (expletives deleted), SPAM should check Charles Blow's NYTimes column for John Erlichman and Kevin Phillips quotes regarding the Nixon Southern Strategy.

And SPAM is so short of logic, he's using the socialist and communist cards. No wonder this a**hole still believes the late 19th century The Gilded Age were America's best days.

And what Bannon said in an off the record interview.

Our dynamic dyslexic duo, Brat and Bert, are serving as hand puppets for Donald J. Trump.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 10:50 AM

https://www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/murder-and-extremism-in-the-united-states-in-2016

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 10:53 AM

Those who lie and make excuses for communist gangs are complicit in their crimes.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 10:29 AM

Confronting racist scum like you hardly makes someone a communist. But if it did, I suspect that communism would be a lot more popular.

In any case, it's great to see you and Brett both equate the KKK and Nazis with "conservatives".

# posted by

Bartbuster : 10:55 AM

Mr. W:

Your GAO report indicts "far right violent extremists," which it defines as:

Far right violent extremist attackers are characterized by ECDB as having beliefs that include some or all of the following:
• Fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation);
• Anti-global;
• Suspicious of centralized federal authority;
• Reverent of individual liberty (especially right to own guns; be free of taxes);
• Belief in conspiracy theories that involve a grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty;
• Belief that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent; and
• Belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in or supporting the need for paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism.

Many of these beliefs could be used to describe the libertarian Founders of the United States and are antithetical to Nazi totalitarians.

ECDB does not claim that any of these "far right extremist attackers" were acting on these beliefs when they allagedly committed murder.

ECDB could include me on this list if I believed in the Decalration of Independence and killed you for being obnoxious.

Now offer some evidence of Nazis and Klan committing murder to further their causes as does ISIS.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:55 AM

SPAM might check back on the history of the KKK while listening to Billie Holiday's rendition of "Strange Fruit." Or perhaps SPAM wishes to focus only on the current KKK hanging around in protest. SPAM's reference to ISIS is a diversion.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 11:10 AM

I get the idea we moved past what GM was saying again.

# posted by

Joe : 11:15 AM

Bart, beliefs can cause different actions. The belief that abortion is murder can motivate both the actions of Orrin Hatch and Eric Rudolph. The people listed in the reports held these beliefs and they committed the listed murders in connection with them. If you're uncomfortable with the actions of your fellow ideologists I suggest you take it up with them. After all, Those who make excuses for right wing terrorists are complicit in their crimes.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 11:22 AM

And your claim about antithetical is nonsense on stilts. Neo Nazi rhetoric in each of these areas is easy to document, including the organizers of the Unite the Right movement.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 11:25 AM

Mr. W. gets to the core of things:

These Nazis have rights, and I think it's good to denounce 'antifa' violence, but these are not 'very fine people.'

Mark Field spells out that the facts on the ground shows it is misleading at best to take a "both sides do it" approach, but as his Japanese example suggests, this doesn't mean the other side is some sort of totally pure group.

It would be a lot better to not speak about the many "nice people" among white supremacists, especially given the overall tenor of the protest as spelled out in detail in various places. We aren't even talking about some average citizen that supports Civil War monuments here.

If one wants to point out some counter-protestors crossed the line, that's fine. That happens. It happened in the 1960s too, though it wasn't "scary" that certain types of civil disobedience was accepted. It is counterproductive, and playing in the hands of white supremacists who here as Mark noted in fact welcome this sort of thing [hitting people with poles etc. suggests they aren't just merely peaceful unless they are attacked; and if that means chants or the like, well, that's not how it supposed to work], to answer violent hate with your own.

Such is the tricky nature of public protests that can get overheated. An objective look can seriously deal with such issues. Or, the logic of allowing armed protests in public parks. Or, the proper nature of the group winning the lawsuit not to change the venue. Or, dealing with proper police presence and reactions.

# posted by

Joe : 11:37 AM

I've been discussing it with my friends locally and while we think there could have been some "nice" people there, they'd have to have been very stupid nice people. But, famously, half the population IS below 100 IQ, that sort of stupidity isn't uncommon.

That said, the counter-protesters didn't incidentally cross the line, they came with specific intent to cross the line. The Antifa aren't well intentioned people who sometimes get a bit rowdy, they're criminal thugs. The reason they come wearing masks is that they come knowing they're going to commit crimes, planning to commit crimes, and they don't want to be easily identified.

They're not the good guys. They're just another faction of bad guys.

# posted by

Brett : 11:49 AM

The white supremacists here are not merely "stupid" or anything. It has been spelled out they are a lot more problematic than that, but Brett keeps on being more concerned about the "thugs" (the white supremacist side is one promoting a message I might deem unpleasant; the other side collectively are "criminal thugs") on the other side.

If we are supposed to -- even after all the coverage, video, etc. -- respectfully treat the white supremacist side, not generalize, why shouldn't we be equally fair here? The other side are not all "criminal thugs." They counterprotested a violent racist/sexist/homophobic group that as explained instigated and directly committed violence and that is the nature of their ideology. That is what they are there for. That's part of freedom. You can come and loudly protest in the streets.

Some crossed the line and should be treated as such. But, even they, as a whole, was not "just another faction" -- that evens blame that in this case isn't warranted. This has already been covered. This doesn't mean the counter-protesters were angels. There is room for perspective there. At least, from some people.

# posted by

Joe : 12:04 PM

Shag:

I am well aware of the history of the Democrat KKK terrorist group when they were at their prime.

What Mr. W claimed was what is left of the Nazis and KKK were murdering large numbers of people over the past decade.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:25 PM

Brett keeps on being more concerned about the "thugs" (the white supremacist side is one promoting a message I might deem unpleasant; the other side collectively are "criminal thugs") on the other side.

The world must be a pretty boring place if people choose to spend their time on line defending actual Nazis. Not "I called someone a Nazi as rhetorical excess", but self-declared, swastika waving, torch bearing, violence-promoting, gun carrying Nazis shouting antisemitic slogans and advocating ethnic cleansing in the US.

# posted by

Mark Field : 12:27 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:32 PM

MR. W: Bart, beliefs can cause different actions.

So, you are saying that those believe in patriotism, individual liberty and are skeptical of government are more likely to engage in murder to advance their beliefs than say progressives, socialists, communists or fascists?

Defamation does not begin to describe this execrable proposition.

And your claim about antithetical is nonsense on stilts. Neo Nazi rhetoric in each of these areas is easy to document, including the organizers of the Unite the Right movement.

National Socialist philosophy subsumes the individual to the state and attacks classical liberalism for its individual liberty and limited government.

Anyone who advocates for individual liberty and limited government by definition cannot be a Nazi.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:36 PM

Good lord you're a dullard.

The fact that non-violent people hold belief X and are motivated by it to engage in non violent acts doesn't mean that violent people can't also hold belief X and be motivated by it to do violent things. This is an empirical fact.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 12:39 PM

"nyone who advocates for individual liberty and limited government by definition cannot be a Nazi."

And yet, self described Nazi groups express the views above commonly. Another empirical fact.

When your abstract categories fail so miserably at capturing such easily shown facts you might want to rethink it.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 12:42 PM

Mr W: The fact that non-violent people hold belief X and are motivated by it to engage in non violent acts doesn't mean that violent people can't also hold belief X and be motivated by it to do violent things. This is an empirical fact.

In that case, the problem is with people predisposed to violence and not with a set of beliefs and your cited report was nonsense on stilts. I agree.

BD: "Anyone who advocates for individual liberty and limited government by definition cannot be a Nazi."

Mr. W: And yet, self described Nazi groups express the views above commonly.

Then these people are by definition not real Nazis or they are lying about their beliefs.

Wearing Nazi costumes or waving around Nazi flags does not make one a Nazi. Nazis are totalitarians.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:50 PM

The 'granddaddy' of American Neo-Nazism is probably William Pierce and his National Vanguard organization (Pierce is the author of The Turner Diaries which received some infamy when Tim McVeigh was found to be a fan).

If you doubt Pierce was a Neo-Nazi, here's some old fashioned Nazi apologia straight from the Nazi himself:
http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/07/thoughts-on-the-fourth-of-july/

Now that that's established, if you can stomach it, read this by the same gentleman. You'll find it hits the points identified above: defense of 2nd Amendment rights, conspiracies, concerns about federal government overreach into our liberties, etc.
http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/09/freedom-under-attack/

In short, the things Bart says no Nazi could (by definition! Lol) believe. And yet, there they are.

You might want to do a little research on this subject before you say something else as stupid about it Bart.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 1:03 PM

If you want to talk about left wing protesters who try to physically shut down speech, it's wrong. I don't have any problem with arresting people who do it, and there are situations such as at Middlebury College where the left wingers were to blame.

But they weren't to blame in Charlottesville. There was some mild left wing misdeeds, as compared to conservatives running someone over, assaulting others, and chanting anti-Semitic slogans.

One of the worst tendencies of people is "its always the other side's fault". It sometimes isn't.

# posted by

Dilan : 1:04 PM

That's why I generally refer to them as "wannabes"; Just as not every idiot who wears a Che shirt actually means to commit mass murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology, not every idiot who wears a swastika actually means to set up a death camp. It isn't just the left, unfortunately, that finds evil "edgy" and "transgressive".

But if you give the idiots leave to act violently, without consequence, they might just evolve into the real deal. Which is why the Antifa desperately need to be dealt with; They're still somewhat petty thugs who shrink from killing, but that's going to change if things go on without reprisal.

# posted by

Brett : 1:06 PM

There are people who identify as Nazis, read and extol Nazi works, wear Nazi symbols, but they're not real because Bart's definition says they don't exist! Lol.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 1:06 PM

When a young kid gets online and finds Nazi and KKK sources that he finds to be wonderful expressors of his desire to be transgressive and that process leads him to shoot up a black church or drive a car into a crowd, it's a case of 'wannabe's' being disaffected kids. When a young person goes online and finds jihadist sources that he finds to be wonderful expressors of his desire to be transgressive and this leads him to knife a crowd or shoot up a disco, it's crap your pants proof that Islam is evil and radicalizing sleeper agents to attack us and a Muskim ban is warranted!

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 1:12 PM

"In that case, the problem is with people predisposed to violence and not with a set of beliefs and your cited report was nonsense on stilts."

I wouldn't say that. Not all beliefs seem to attract or trigger murderous violence equally. I think it has to do with what we might call the 'extremism' of the thinking....after all, people often react to what they perceive of as extreme situations with extreme measures.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 1:16 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Joe : 1:21 PM

The white supremacists here weren't just cosplaying here. There is a line crossed before you get to death camps.

Everyone here said more than once that they don't want violence to lack consequences. That isn't good enough, apparently. They were concerned about perspective -- civil rights in the 1960s involved civil disobedience, breaking the law, in various respects. That is not by definition "scary" in every case especially in comparison. Some zero tolerance rule there seems rather authoritarian, but Brett is a conservative, so might be more willing to use government power.

There is "reprisal." Mark Field noted a person was arrested. People were arrested for protests that broke the law. This isn't somehow new. Some people took part in violent protests leading up the American Revolution, including tar and feathering. To the degree more people should have been arrested here, again, objective perspective would not be concerned so much about one side.

Anyway, writ large, Nazis are fine with authoritarian government. They debate with others on what exactly government should do. Just like conservatives sometimes speak about courts violating "democracy" when it is really just a matter of them disagreeing on specific constitutional analysis. In some other case, they are fine with courts overturning democratically passed laws. Conservatives are not Nazis overall, but we all are humans, and there is some overlap in that sense.

# posted by

Joe : 1:23 PM

A lot of 1960's protesting was about getting arrested. That was part of the protest. And the protesters were usually non-violent, which called attention to law enforcement violence.

# posted by

Dilan : 1:24 PM

Mr. W:

Let's start by defining our terms.

Classical liberals/libertarians believe in individual liberty (we are free to live our lives as we please so long as we do not harm others) and government limited to keeping people from harming one another to maximize individual liberty from government and other individuals.

Totalitarians believe in unlimited government to achieve their goals and only recognize limits which protect their preferred activities. What distinguishes progressives, socialists and fascists and all the totalitarian gradients in between from one another is what they want government to direct.

William Pierce appears to be a white supremacist who admired Hitler's persecution of groups of which he disapproves, but shares little of Hitler's totalitarian National Socialist ideology. This is true of most American Nazis and KKK. They are haters, not really political ideologues.

Next.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:27 PM

That's your problem, you're trying to win an empirical argument by first defining your way to being right. That's called begging the question.

"
William Pierce appears to be a white supremacist who admired Hitler's persecution of groups of which he disapproves, but shares little of Hitler's totalitarian National Socialist ideology. This is true of most *American Nazis and KKK*"
Emphasis mine

This started when I referred to "Neo Nazis and KKK" and affiliated groups committing murders. You responded with 'well these right wing domestic terrorists can't be Nazis because definitions!' Yet Here *you yourself refer to these people as Nazis.* Jeez-Louis.

Of course Neo or 'American' Nazis might not subscribe to every part of the protean Nazi Party platforms of the 1930's, that's in part why they're called Neo Nazis. My point that people affiliated with those groups have been quite murderous and that they most definitely as a matter of empirical fact espouse the beliefs identified in that report stands as incontrovertible fact.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 1:47 PM

Mr. W:

1) The first thing I do when examining an issue is to come up with definitions which conform to the evidence, not the common wisdom or propaganda. In this case, I do not care what progressives, socialists and fascists say, I care what they actually do.

2) Pierce is not an ideological Nazi and most certainly is not a classical liberal who believes in individual liberty for everyone. I do not see a coherent ideology at all.

3) What is a neo-Nazi? Someone who dresses in the costumes? Hitler groupies? The only thing Pierce appears to have in common with Hitler is they hate many of the same people. Racial and religious hatred alone is not a political ideology.

If your points are only that haters will hate and violent people will act violently, then we agree.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 2:27 PM

Bart and Brett, it's pretty simple. There are right wing supporters of Trump and the Republican Party, i.e., your ostensible political allies, who are also steeped in Nazi rhetoric, say nasty things about Jews and minorities, and are sometimes violent and often intimidating. And a group of those people caused a great extent of the problems in Charlottesville.

Whether these people are "true conservatives", "true Nazis", or "classical liberals" is besides the point. I just described what the problem with them is.

And the reality is that the things that cause political violence really aren't debates about the size of government, much as libertarians and conservatives might want to define things as such. This sort of violence is part and parcel of certain views about race, ethnicity, and nationalism.

In fact, even the libertarians you contrast with everyone else believe in a central government. The Defense Department is, the last time I checked, the largest department in the government and one that you and many other right-leaning libertarians strongly support. Wanting the government to build a huge military to deter attacks and throw our weight around is not any different, philosophically, on the issue of size of government as wanting a government to take care of poor and old people or provide people with health care.

There is a resurgence in this country right now of groups who explicitly denigrate racial, ethnic, and religious minorities. They aren't the only problem out there, and as I said above, I am perfectly willing to talk about the excesses of left-wing protesters, just not after an incident like this where they clearly were not the party at fault. Right now, the problem that matters is the right wing hate groups. And this problem isn't going to be solved by changing the subject to the size of government or by pretending these folks are no different than people on the left.

We had a social consensus in this country for a long time that kept these people in the shadows. William F. Buckley famously kicked the Birchers out of the conservative movement. Politicians denounced them. And saying these sorts of things in polite society could get you ostracized. We need to restore that social consensus, and to do that, we need the right as well as the left to maintain it and not try to change the subject.

# posted by

Dilan : 2:46 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:20 PM

Dilan: There are right wing supporters of Trump and the Republican Party, i.e., your ostensible political allies, who are also steeped in Nazi rhetoric, say nasty things about Jews and minorities, and are sometimes violent and often intimidating. And a group of those people caused a great extent of the problems in Charlottesville.

OK, Mr. Gander, there are left wing supporters of Obama and the Democrats, i.e. your ostensible allies, who are also steeped in communist rhetoric, say nasty things about white and hispanic Americans, and are generally violent and intimidating. And a group of these people engaged in much of the violence at Charlotte Charlottesville.

I completely reject your guilt by remote association premise.

I not a Nazi or Kluxer simply because a Nazi or a Kluxer votes for the same candidate as I do any more than you are a communist because the CPUSA supported and voted for Obama.

And the reality is that the things that cause political violence really aren't debates about the size of government, much as libertarians and conservatives might want to define things as such. This sort of violence is part and parcel of certain views about race, ethnicity, and nationalism.

More accurately all of the above.

Antifa is a radical socialist group which believes in eliminating capitalism and perpetrates much of its violence against capitalist institutions or supporters of capitalism.

I am perfectly willing to talk about the excesses of left-wing protesters, just not after an incident like this where they clearly were not the party at fault. Right now, the problem that matters is the right wing hate groups.

Antifa, BLM, KKK and Nazis are ALL problems and should be targeted by law enforcement as domestic terrorist groups. No exceptions, no excuses.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:21 PM

"OK, Mr. Gander, there are left wing supporters of Obama and the Democrats, i.e. your ostensible allies, who are also steeped in communist rhetoric, say nasty things about white and hispanic Americans, and are generally violent and intimidating. And a group of these people engaged in much of the violence at Charlotte Charlottesville."

This isn't true. There are certainly left wing supporters of Obama and the Democrats who have racist views (some of them turned around and voted for Trump, of course), but where are the photos of these people holding marches armed and burning torches and chanting their racist slogans?

And certainly nobody in the above description was in Charlottesville. At most, what you had in Charlottesville was a few non-racist, non-communist, non-intimidating lefties who crossed some legal lines but who were not in any way the cause of Heather Heyer's death or the other major injuries there.

And I agree, the fact that the Nazis vote for candidates that you vote for doesn't make you a Nazi. It doesn't.

But the problem is you are defending them. First, by changing the subject to the left. You don't get to do this. Any more than it would be appropriate for me to change the subject to the right after Middlebury. Changing the subject is minimizing the awfulness of the Nazis.

And further, you are defending them by letting them off the hook for Charlottesville.

You are not a Nazi. But STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR NAZIS. Just say "this was really bad, it was the fault of the extreme right wingers, and no matter what the left does in other situations that I think is wrong and ticks me off, the right needs to distance itself from the awful people who went to Charlottesville". That's all you need to say. You don't need to give up any of your critiques of Antifa or BLM or anyone else. Just admit that the problem this weekend was the right wing extremists and that they deserve to shoulder the blame.

And no, BLM and Antifa are not terrorist groups. Where's the evidence that they are plotting acts of mass violence? Where have they carried out threats of violence against civilian populations?

We once had a left wing violence problem in this country. I live in Los Angeles, where union syndicalists once blew up the Los Angeles Times building. THAT was left wing terrorism. Until BLM and Antifa pull something like that off, you are just trying to suppress speech you don't like. Which makes you a pretty phony "libertarian".

# posted by

Dilan : 3:29 PM

Dilan at 2:46 is correct. Bart's begging the question and engaging in a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

Pierce is a Nazi. You may think the economic or governmental programes of the Nazi Party circa 1930's were the fundamental essence of them, but your obviously wrong. To those that proudly call themselves Nazis today (whom you yourself referred to as Nazis!) it was the militarism, the nationalism, the bigotry that was its essence, and as one can see from Pierce's writing (or yours frankly) that can be be remarkably compatible with supposed classical liberal beliefs.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 3:34 PM

The communists aren't cosplayers, either, you know. The difference is that the police get out of the Antifa's way when they want to attack somebody, whereas the police don't cooperate with the Nazis. That makes the Antifa more dangerous in the long run, they have allies in the government.

That's been repeatedly demonstrated when the Antifa attack. Virtually always the local police have been given a "stand down" order. Combine that with the increasing liberal tendency to label anyone who disagrees with them a "Nazi", and open season for attacking, and of course people on my end of the political spectrum are going to be worried.

# posted by

Brett : 3:44 PM

"We once had a left wing violence problem in this country."

Once? ONCE? Did you freaking sleep through last year?

I will gladly admit that left wing violence has, at points in the past, been a bit worse. But the upswing in the last couple of years ought to worry anybody.

"And no, BLM and Antifa are not terrorist groups. Where's the evidence that they are plotting acts of mass violence? Where have they carried out threats of violence against civilian populations?"

Oh, now it's not enough to engage in violence for political effect, you have to take down a building to get counted as a terrorist. Violence isn't enough, it has to be mass violence.

# posted by

Brett : 3:49 PM

Dilan:

Violence is a crime which harms others. Racism is an opinion which harms no one. Sticks and stones. The government should be in the business of policing violence, not opinions.

But the problem is you are defending them. First, by changing the subject to the left...you are defending them by letting them off the hook for Charlottesville.

I am only addressing one subject - violence. My calling for Antifa, BLM, KKK and Nazis to ALL be targeted by law enforcement as domestic terrorist groups is hardly a defense of the Nazis or KKK. In contrast, those who would ignore or excuse Antifa or BLM are enabling them.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:53 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Joe : 4:10 PM

To give credit where credit is due, various conservatives, including certain National Review types are strongly criticizing Trump and other things, such as a NR piece appalled at the result of a trial involving killing someone by the police in his car. A National Review piece, which I linked, also supported removal of Confederate monuments. I don't regularly read NR but I'm sure they didn't suddenly find the light regarding liberalism or anything. But, some conservatives have pushed against basic norm violations and so forth.

# posted by

Joe : 4:16 PM

There's a nice piece by Matt Yglesias listing stuff that conservatives could do that would establish their bona fides on this sort of thing without in any way asking them for ideological compromises:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/17/16156808/republicans-can-check-trump

# posted by

Dilan : 4:17 PM

"The communists aren't cosplayers, either, you know"

But Brett, you can't call them communists. Why I bet they can't recite Marx's Labor Theory of value, and such a person by definition can't be a communist ;)

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 4:19 PM

Antifa seems to me more anarchist than communist ("they're nihilists, Donnie"). But the claim that they have sympathizers in police departments, of all places, is delusional.

As has been cited, the problem with political violence in this country over the past 15 years (actually longer) is from the right wing. They're the ones killing people.

But making claims about "left wing violence" in general, false though they are, is also irrelevant. We're discussing one particular incident from this past weekend. As sane people are pointing out repeatedly here: the Antifas were not the problem in this case. The Nazis were the problem. Denouncing actual Nazis unequivocally is the lowest bar to clear in all of American politics, yet Trump can't bring himself to do it. And no, "whataboutism" does not qualify as "unequivocal".

# posted by

Mark Field : 4:23 PM

As I noted earlier, street violence has been a thing since before the American Revolution, and the authorities have pragmatically handled it in various ways ever since then. But, left leaning protesters have repeatedly been arrested, and repeatedly are not likely to have that much sympathy among the more likely than not conservative leading police forces. No one here (I'll leave BB aside to speak for himself) is supportive of violence from the left. This isn't good enough apparently.

Now here, as has been repeatedly noted, there was an imbalance of wrongdoing, so perhaps the police would be more sympathetic. But, reading over the coverage, there has been repeated complaints the police didn't do enough to address the violence of the white supremacists. So, even here, some imbalance in favor of the left leaning protesters is far from clear. I'm for peaceful assembly myself.

Finally, yet again, if we are going to defend white supremacists as "stupid" peace loving sorts, we should not taint by guilt by association every member of the other side either. Even if they have a message you don't like. Antifascists are a loose group that according to Wikipedia go back at least back to the 1930s. As to communists, they had (and to the degree any are left have) rights too. I think the government violated them a bit too often myself.

# posted by

Joe : 4:25 PM

"Virtually always the local police have been given a "stand down" order."

Citation?

I mean, police control of mob situations is always very challenging, as one might imagine. I've read of times where police didn't immediately engage for a variety of reasons (they didn't think there were enough of them to be effective, they were awaiting back up, they were concerned about escalating things to a 'breaking point,'). And in the face of that both sides often complain about police indifference or that they're secretly 'on the side' of the mob (the black man beaten on video by some 'very fine people' in Charlottesville is making this claim: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/man-beaten-at-protest-says-police-were-indifferent-to-attack/2017/08/15/1179031a-8201-11e7-9e7a-20fa8d7a0db6_story.html?utm_term=.608c2b21afdc

But I'd be interest to see a citation for an incident where the police were ordered to stand down and allow violence from a mob because the commanding authority was an 'ally' of the mob.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 4:30 PM

The "stand down orders" are mythical, but I think it's reasonable to say that the police in Charlottesville did a pretty lousy job on this.

What is supposed to happen is that if the Nazis are going to march and get a permit, you have a police presence sufficient to both protect them and prevent them from engaging in any violence. So they get to hold their march but they don't get to start any fights.

And if there's going to be a counter protest, you get enough police out so the counter-protesters can also march, and they don't get in any physical interactions with the Nazis.

A smartly run urban police department can handle these situations, and indeed, they happen with some regularity. If you do it right, everyone gets to have their say and nobody gets hurt.

# posted by

Dilan : 4:42 PM

One doesn't have to go too far back in the archives of this Blog to recall our dynamic dyslexic duo, Brat and Bert, each self describing as an anarcho libertarian and their thoughts about the 2nd A supporting armed revolutions against the federal and state governments.

Regarding what constitution, consider the definition of criminal assault. Even permitted KKK and Neo Nazis can cause fear and intimation, especially when marching with openly carried weapons and making certain moves towards people observing the marching.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 4:47 PM

I don't think their ally was in the police station, but rather the mayor's office.

"What is supposed to happen is that if the Nazis are going to march and get a permit, you have a police presence sufficient to both protect them and prevent them from engaging in any violence. So they get to hold their march but they don't get to start any fights."

Only the local government didn't WANT the march to take place, remember? It took a court order to get the parade permit. A fight made a very convenient excuse to revoke it.

# posted by

Brett : 5:36 PM

"A smartly run urban police department can handle these situations, and indeed, they happen with some regularity"

Charlottesville isn't a very 'urban' area, especially during the summer when most students are gone it's more of a sleepy college town. Also, in fairness to them they tried to get the rally moved to a more easy to police park but a federal judge following current First Amendment fetishism prohibited that (and could be said to have caused that poor woman's death).

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:11 PM

"I don't think their ally was in the police station, but rather the mayor's office."

So, no citation for your charge then?

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:12 PM

Anyone familiar with municipal police knows that the mayors don't control the cops. If the cops want to bash antifa or BLM heads, they will. There are dozens if not hundreds of examples of this.

I assume your referring to Charlottesville. The Charlottesville mayor didn't object to the parade per se, he (?) just wanted it held in a different location within Charlottesville. But even if the city didn't want the parade at all (understandably enough in this case), that happens all the time. That's why the courts (and often the ACLU, as here) step in.

# posted by

Mark Field : 6:16 PM

Joe:

Most of National Review and all of Weekly Standard are #nevertrump

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 6:22 PM

Most of National Review and all of Weekly Standard are #nevertrump
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 6:22 PM

So were you. Apparently you got past that.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 6:58 PM

Nah, I'm pretty sure the driver caused her death. All the judge did was not cooperate with an attempt to violate the 1st amendment.

# posted by

Brett : 7:33 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 7:38 PM

SPAM presumably continue to "Yankee his Doodle Dandy" on this thread until it's time for SPAM to shift back to his Cruz Canadacy mode and point out that Trump had been on, off and back several times between being a Democrat and a Republican. SPAM is now trolling as an advocate for Trump who he claimed was a fascist. Perhaps SPAM did not mean that pejoratively.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 7:39 PM

Nah, I'm pretty sure the driver caused her death. All the judge did was not cooperate with an attempt to violate the 1st amendment.

I had a debate on this question on another blog and leaned toward the ACLU (who here worked with the Rutherford Institute, a conservative group, to defend the rights of conservatives of a radical fringe type -- as they do over and over again on a range of issues, including recently supporting altering a gun regulation that it felt wrongly treated certain people) position. But, not sure exactly.

The "attempt to violate the 1st Amendment" amounted to determining that allowing a protest at one location overall would be problematic as a matter of public safety, so it wanted to move it to a location about a mile away (as I understand it) that someone who lived nearby explained to me would be easier to separate the two sides & regulate the situation better. This includes dangers of cars and so forth.

If such a time/place/manner regulation, which occurs all.the.time for protests in various contexts was wrong-minded is something reasonable minds can disagree on.

# posted by

Joe : 8:31 PM

"I'm pretty sure the driver caused her death"

Yes, but in an incident which was much, much less likely to have occurred if the rally were moved. All the speech would have been just as readily delivered at the site the city requested, but security would have been much more effective (the park the rally organizers wanted is a small park in the most 'downtown' section of the city, surrounded by narrow roads in small city blocks with lots of pedestrian traffic, the site the city requested is much more like a traditional park in a large field with one wide access road). The First Amendment is being used as if humans were robots without communities and life was a debating club. A woman is dead and countless injured. Let justice be done though the heavens fall though, I guess.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 8:40 PM

Ironically, if they did go to the city's requested site the rally probably would have actually occurred (and more speech resulted).

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 8:44 PM

The speech was tied to a monument in the park and generally speaking it is appropriate to allow protests to be in the location tied to their message. So, e.g., you have people protest in front of abortion clinics (if with a buffer zone to allow patients to go in etc.), not some place a mile down the road.

But, there might have been a good reason to balance public safety here since the First Amendment protects "peaceful assembly" etc. and overall the 1A is not absolute.

# posted by

Joe : 8:56 PM

The First Amendment, in general, allows protesters to choose their venue, and for good reason. When governments move protests, they have a huge temptation to declare that "security" requires they be cordoned off where nobody hears them, as happens at national political conventions.

The city is supposed to be able to police this. If they needed help from other police agencies they should have requested it.

# posted by

Dilan : 8:58 PM

"they have a huge temptation to declare that "security" requires they be cordoned off where nobody hears them"

Courts police these kinds of motives all the time. On the other side of the scale is a dead woman.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 9:10 PM