The Left Goes Off the Rails for Trump

Donald Trump has pushed some Leftists off the rails. Take poor Jesse Benn over at the Huffington Post (or as James Taranto likes to call it, the "Puffington Host"). Jesse has become so unhinged that he actually wrote an article titled, "Sorry Liberals, A Violent Response To Trump Is As Logical As Any".

Jesse starts his treatise with the classical argument, "Mommy, he hit me first!":

There are so many examples of Trump inciting violence the New York Times put together this video documenting some of them. A powerful video juxtaposing his longing for the violence against protestors from the “good ol’ days” with images from the Civil Rights Era recently went viral. There’s been an upswing in anti-Muslim hate crimes that correlates with his candidacy—including several offenders who cite him as their inspiration. Another of his supporters beat an unhoused Latino man. Yet another sucker punched a demonstrator at a rally and then, more alarmingly, went on to say, “The next time we see him, we might have to kill him.” Trump has not just flagrantly violated the typical boundaries of political discourse, his candidacy is linked to multiple instances of violence. 

What amazes me is that Jesse can see the violence perpetrated against the black non-violent protesters, and not recognize the evil in the kind of violence advocated by Trump. Jesse clearly understands that violence is wrong, but his solution is juvenile:

It shouldn’t be a surprise that opposition to [Trump] has responded [with violence]. Yet, a lot of people seem shocked and appalled at this perfectly logical reaction. In the face of media, politicians, and GOP primary voters normalizing Trump as a presidential candidate—whatever your personal beliefs regarding violent resistance—there’s an inherent value in forestalling Trump’s normalization. Violent resistance accomplishes this. In spite of this, such resistance is apparently more offensive and unacceptable to societal norms and liberal sensibilities than the nastiness being resisted in the first place.

In other words, to defend a civilized society where people do not use violence to resolve conflicts, it is ok to resort to violence? I can buy that argument in defense of war, but not in defense of disagreement within society. I am sure Jesse's mother would tell him, "And if Trump jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?"

Jesse goes on to make three points:

1. Trump is a fascist. No arguments here.

2. If the only non-violent way to resist Trump is to vote for Hillary, that excludes people who won't vote for Hillary. Jesse, may I introduce you to Gary Johnson? But I see your point:

My biggest issue with looking at the Trump problem as an exclusively political issue, though, is that if he loses this fall everyone will go back to ignoring the things that got us here in the first place. No matter who wins in November, the forces underpinning his rise will remain.

I have bad news for you Jesse: This is how uninformed democracy works. While I would love to see an informed democracy come together and really work at solving problems, this is a pipe dream. Most people don't care. The ones who do care tend to be in the minority, or they are the stupid ones beating people up at Trump rallies (both for and against Trump).

3. "Violent resistance matters. Riots can lead to major change". Absolutely. Consider Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch. 

Leaving that historical example aside, does Jesse realize he is advocating for the same violence his opposition is using? This isn't a simple "riot". Riots only have one side, which is those advocating for change using violence as their means. When you have two sides willing to get violent, this is called "civil war". Those never end well.

Somebody, get Jesse's mother on the line. She has some unfinished work with her son here.