Violence in the Cap...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Violence in the Capitol, Dangers in the Aftermath

1 Posts
1 Users
0 Reactions
106 Views
Avatar Of Jbear
Posts: 112
Topic starter
(@jbear)
Gunner
Joined: 55 years ago

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/violence-in-the-capitol-dangers-in-67f?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxODkxOTUyOCwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzExMzMyOTEsIl8iOiI4bFMxaiIsImlhdCI6MTYxMDA1MjkzNywiZXhwIjoxNjEwMDU2NTM3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTI4NjYyIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.nFS3XIVyp9qfmuWVVks9gmbTYzuJ5LNwGODLgkHc94Y

I wish everyone would spend the time to read the entire thing but I'm not going to post every word to make sure. Just some highlights.

It is therefore not hard to understand why watching a marauding band of hooligans invade and deface both the House and the Senate, without any identifiable objective other than venting grievances, reflexively engenders a patriotic disgust across the political spectrum.

It is unhinged to the point of being obscene to compare yesterday’s incursion to the 9/11 attack or (as Sen. Chuck Schumer did last night) to Pearl Harbor.

There are other, more important historical lessons to draw not only from the 9/11 attack but subsequent terrorism on U.S. soil. One is the importance of resisting the coercive framework that demands everyone choose one of two extremes: that the incident is either (a) insignificant or even justifiable, or (b) is an earth-shattering, radically transformative event that demands radical, transformative state responses.
This reductive, binary framework is anti-intellectual and dangerous. One can condemn a particular act while resisting the attempt to inflate the dangers it poses. One can acknowledge the very real existence of a threat while also warning of the harms, often far greater, from proposed solutions. One can reject maximalist, inflammatory rhetoric about an attack (a War of Civilizations, an attempted coup, an insurrection, sedition) without being fairly accused of indifference toward or sympathy for the attackers.

My insistence that we look at the other side of the ledger — the costs and dangers not only from such attacks but also the “solutions” implemented in the name of the stopping them — did not come from indifference towards those deaths or a naive views of those responsible for them. It was instead driven by my simultaneous recognition of the dangers from rights-eroding, authoritarian reactions imposed by the state, particularly in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic event. One need not engage in denialism or minimization of a threat to rationally resist fear-driven fanaticism — as Barbara Lee so eloquently insisted on September 14, 2001.

Share: