I am going to use the words left and right to denote specific philosophical positions in political economy which, despite your protestations, are clear to me. I distinguish left and right from Democrat/Republican, progressive/liberal/conservative, authoritarian/libertarian, et cetera. A left-wing person believes some hierarchies are oppressive and illegitimate. A right-wing person believes some hierarchies are emergent, natural and good. I wouldn't go so far as to say the extremes of these attitudes would say "all hierarchies" because there is some weird clustering (based on polling) of left wing attitudes compared to a more unusual spread of right wing attitudes. In that respect some have observed a dichotomy that to be left wing is to be against hierarchy but to be right wing is to be against the left (though I don't think in a schismogenic way). Interesting discussion, but besides the point.
The reaction to the assassination is more illustrative than the motives of the assassin. More information has come out since you recorded the episode, but still I will only focus on the reaction to the assassination. Charlie Kirk was an anodyne conservative. He spoke for a living, held views that would have been well within the Overton window of discourse in the 1990s, rather more tame than the paleoconservatives of that time. His brand was talking to young people, even those who disagreed with him, about ideas. For my part I don't plan to engage in any throat clearing about whether or not I agreed with his politics and process.
A contingent of very online leftists reacted with glee. You remark that basically no one of any standing celebrated. I can't see into the hearts of those in positions of power, nominally to Charlie's left, who would have seen themselves in opposition to him, but I would wager some percentage of them have similar sentiments. What they also have is impulse control. Their lives are ordered such that they were able to achieve positions of status and power. Expand the circle a bit to those who tried to offer a justification, the "live by the sword" argument. You start to see some more consequential names like Stephen King. They are still terminally online leftists, but they are able to support their favorite vice, posting online all day.
Let's just talk about the worst of them, the ones posting with glee, offering names of people who should be next. I suspect Charlie would say that these people are redeemable, that they should accept Jesus Christ and begin to put their lives in order. Their current religion is a secular one that forgives them their glee in seeing him die for the crime of saying words with which they happen to disagree. Maybe Charlie is right. To the extent the individual search for meaning expresses itself in a need for some religion, I was probably born in the 1st percentile of that need, which is to say I don't know if I agree.
I have considered a digression into the present state of the left beginning with the end of domestic terror in the 1970s, but I will pause and just say that the waters in which the left has been swimming are maintained as one would a fish tank. There's an illustrative joke here. One fish swims up to another in the morning and says, "Water is nice today, isn't it?" The other fish says, "What the fuck is water?" For some time there has been an intentional vulgarization of what rights are, to the point where many believe in positive rights, seeing anyone who speaks against them as infringing upon said rights, and we all know what happens to people who violate our human rights, right? *WINK WINK*
Some contingent of the left believes the assassination was justified and were happy to see it done. They believe more should occur, and they would be happy to see those as well. They are disordered enough to say that out loud. I am glad that they do because these people are dangerous, and it is great to know who they are. If they feel that way about Charlie Kirk, how would they feel about anyone to the right of him? Pretty good, I suspect.
What is to be done? I don't think there is any power you can give the government it will use to good effect. It will be used for your allies today and against your allies next year. The one observation I will make regarding the application of state power is that it would be a punishment to jail a foreign national for speech in America, but it would not be a punishment to return them to their country of origin. Citizens have the benefit of being citizens, everyone else is just auditioning. Liberal values are contingent on mutual cooperation, so we should not extend them to those who do not reciprocate. I can already play the tape forward, with each changing State Department issuing more arbitrary criteria, but ultimately visas are not a right. So yes, if any visa holder expressed support for violence as an appropriate response to peaceful speech, I would like to see that visa status change. I am genuinely curious if this is within the State Department's power, and would be curious to hear Anna Gorisch back on the show to discuss. This is the tack I would have taken against Glenn Greenwald in the debate, by the way, that any immigration status short of citizenship is an audition for citizenship, and cultivating liberal values means pruning illiberal weeds.
Citizens, though. We have a lot of those. My answer here is the same for other problem domains. Devolve the federal government so that controlling it is less consequential. Encourage ideological sorting on a geographic basis. Offer cooperation to those who are willing to cooperate, offer nothing to those who are not. I recognize that gross ideological differences are largely urban/rural, but there is tremendous energy spent across this country preventing the formation of more natural polities, and I would see it directed at a managed dissolution of the current order for the sake of peace.
If anyone actually made it to the end of this and is worried, don't be. We live in the best of all possible worlds. Love your family, love your friends, love yourself. Be peaceful, not harmless, and you'll make it through.
I saw left wing commentators who did panels with him and knew him damn near in tears reacting. What you said about impulse control is a thing to though.
Part of it is, if someone really thinks it’s an existential crisis, well there’s guys I was in the army with that are not what I would call decent people but they’d be my first picks if I was picking a group from the people I served with to go into a fight. Maybe not an occupation but a fight? I want that guy that’s ok just shooting first and asking questions later over the guy that will always hesitate.
I’ll also say that while this doesn’t mean a person deserves it or it’s a good idea to carry one out, going into political commentary in a volatile time and place probably should include assassination in the risk assessment. “The other side” is made up of 10s of millions of individuals who get to individually decide what is or is not off their table as a response to a speaker they don’t like.
I consider reacting with glee to any killing a warning sign. Any human being. I know a child molester. Currently doing a 200 year stretch in prison. He’s alive because the mother of his victims sat on her husband, whose a crack shot with a deer rifle, until the cops had him in custody. I wouldn’t be upset if he had gotten smoked. I also wouldn’t celebrate the waste of it. That a human being squandered their time and potential doing something so heinous that a killing was necessary and yes keeping such people locked up is a waste of resources and they can’t be trusted to be free. There’s people like that. Even their death shouldn’t be celebrated. Though if it was a difficult shot I don’t see a problem with taking pride in good work but that’s a different question.
I agree the government can’t fix it though. Wild times for sure.
Don’t know what the rest of y’all got going on but I called the realtor yesterday. Looking at three properties just outside a town of less than 800, 20 minutes away. Bought another 1,000 rounds of 5.56, more concertina wire, another mile of telephone wire for my field phones and looking at another set of body armor. Dusting off my old counter mobility and field fortification field manuals. Less people equals less problems as the empire collapses. I had hoped that would be peaceful but I rate that as less and less likely. Time to start seeing to me and mine coming through it ok instead of trying to stop it I think.
I am going to use the words left and right to denote specific philosophical positions in political economy which, despite your protestations, are clear to me. I distinguish left and right from Democrat/Republican, progressive/liberal/conservative, authoritarian/libertarian, et cetera. A left-wing person believes some hierarchies are oppressive and illegitimate. A right-wing person believes some hierarchies are emergent, natural and good. I wouldn't go so far as to say the extremes of these attitudes would say "all hierarchies" because there is some weird clustering (based on polling) of left wing attitudes compared to a more unusual spread of right wing attitudes. In that respect some have observed a dichotomy that to be left wing is to be against hierarchy but to be right wing is to be against the left (though I don't think in a schismogenic way). Interesting discussion, but besides the point.
The reaction to the assassination is more illustrative than the motives of the assassin. More information has come out since you recorded the episode, but still I will only focus on the reaction to the assassination. Charlie Kirk was an anodyne conservative. He spoke for a living, held views that would have been well within the Overton window of discourse in the 1990s, rather more tame than the paleoconservatives of that time. His brand was talking to young people, even those who disagreed with him, about ideas. For my part I don't plan to engage in any throat clearing about whether or not I agreed with his politics and process.
A contingent of very online leftists reacted with glee. You remark that basically no one of any standing celebrated. I can't see into the hearts of those in positions of power, nominally to Charlie's left, who would have seen themselves in opposition to him, but I would wager some percentage of them have similar sentiments. What they also have is impulse control. Their lives are ordered such that they were able to achieve positions of status and power. Expand the circle a bit to those who tried to offer a justification, the "live by the sword" argument. You start to see some more consequential names like Stephen King. They are still terminally online leftists, but they are able to support their favorite vice, posting online all day.
Let's just talk about the worst of them, the ones posting with glee, offering names of people who should be next. I suspect Charlie would say that these people are redeemable, that they should accept Jesus Christ and begin to put their lives in order. Their current religion is a secular one that forgives them their glee in seeing him die for the crime of saying words with which they happen to disagree. Maybe Charlie is right. To the extent the individual search for meaning expresses itself in a need for some religion, I was probably born in the 1st percentile of that need, which is to say I don't know if I agree.
I have considered a digression into the present state of the left beginning with the end of domestic terror in the 1970s, but I will pause and just say that the waters in which the left has been swimming are maintained as one would a fish tank. There's an illustrative joke here. One fish swims up to another in the morning and says, "Water is nice today, isn't it?" The other fish says, "What the fuck is water?" For some time there has been an intentional vulgarization of what rights are, to the point where many believe in positive rights, seeing anyone who speaks against them as infringing upon said rights, and we all know what happens to people who violate our human rights, right? *WINK WINK*
Some contingent of the left believes the assassination was justified and were happy to see it done. They believe more should occur, and they would be happy to see those as well. They are disordered enough to say that out loud. I am glad that they do because these people are dangerous, and it is great to know who they are. If they feel that way about Charlie Kirk, how would they feel about anyone to the right of him? Pretty good, I suspect.
What is to be done? I don't think there is any power you can give the government it will use to good effect. It will be used for your allies today and against your allies next year. The one observation I will make regarding the application of state power is that it would be a punishment to jail a foreign national for speech in America, but it would not be a punishment to return them to their country of origin. Citizens have the benefit of being citizens, everyone else is just auditioning. Liberal values are contingent on mutual cooperation, so we should not extend them to those who do not reciprocate. I can already play the tape forward, with each changing State Department issuing more arbitrary criteria, but ultimately visas are not a right. So yes, if any visa holder expressed support for violence as an appropriate response to peaceful speech, I would like to see that visa status change. I am genuinely curious if this is within the State Department's power, and would be curious to hear Anna Gorisch back on the show to discuss. This is the tack I would have taken against Glenn Greenwald in the debate, by the way, that any immigration status short of citizenship is an audition for citizenship, and cultivating liberal values means pruning illiberal weeds.
Citizens, though. We have a lot of those. My answer here is the same for other problem domains. Devolve the federal government so that controlling it is less consequential. Encourage ideological sorting on a geographic basis. Offer cooperation to those who are willing to cooperate, offer nothing to those who are not. I recognize that gross ideological differences are largely urban/rural, but there is tremendous energy spent across this country preventing the formation of more natural polities, and I would see it directed at a managed dissolution of the current order for the sake of peace.
If anyone actually made it to the end of this and is worried, don't be. We live in the best of all possible worlds. Love your family, love your friends, love yourself. Be peaceful, not harmless, and you'll make it through.
I saw left wing commentators who did panels with him and knew him damn near in tears reacting. What you said about impulse control is a thing to though.
Part of it is, if someone really thinks it’s an existential crisis, well there’s guys I was in the army with that are not what I would call decent people but they’d be my first picks if I was picking a group from the people I served with to go into a fight. Maybe not an occupation but a fight? I want that guy that’s ok just shooting first and asking questions later over the guy that will always hesitate.
I’ll also say that while this doesn’t mean a person deserves it or it’s a good idea to carry one out, going into political commentary in a volatile time and place probably should include assassination in the risk assessment. “The other side” is made up of 10s of millions of individuals who get to individually decide what is or is not off their table as a response to a speaker they don’t like.
I consider reacting with glee to any killing a warning sign. Any human being. I know a child molester. Currently doing a 200 year stretch in prison. He’s alive because the mother of his victims sat on her husband, whose a crack shot with a deer rifle, until the cops had him in custody. I wouldn’t be upset if he had gotten smoked. I also wouldn’t celebrate the waste of it. That a human being squandered their time and potential doing something so heinous that a killing was necessary and yes keeping such people locked up is a waste of resources and they can’t be trusted to be free. There’s people like that. Even their death shouldn’t be celebrated. Though if it was a difficult shot I don’t see a problem with taking pride in good work but that’s a different question.
I agree the government can’t fix it though. Wild times for sure.
Social Media and our tribal instincts are destroying our ability to disagree in a civil way.
If only someone had written a book about this...
Great Episode Heaton, try not to be too-downhearted 🙂🙂
Don’t know what the rest of y’all got going on but I called the realtor yesterday. Looking at three properties just outside a town of less than 800, 20 minutes away. Bought another 1,000 rounds of 5.56, more concertina wire, another mile of telephone wire for my field phones and looking at another set of body armor. Dusting off my old counter mobility and field fortification field manuals. Less people equals less problems as the empire collapses. I had hoped that would be peaceful but I rate that as less and less likely. Time to start seeing to me and mine coming through it ok instead of trying to stop it I think.