The American Republican Party, and others on the political Right, have been claiming that the Democratic Party, and others on the Left, is the party of violence. I disagree and will explain why, but first thought I should look at what they have to say.
My wife found this short video
on YouTube by Brian Holdsworth titled “The Left’s History of Violence”. Let’s see
what Brian has to say.
He starts by complaining that Right-wing figures like
Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are labeled “controversial” while Left-wing
figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) are “daring” and “uncompromising.”
First, who is calling them that – Left-leaning people I presume? So how do
Right-leaning people describe them? They probably think that Ben and Jordan are
honest, smart, good debaters, and stand up for what they believe, while AOC is
a radical left lunatic. I’d say both sides are good at dissing the other side
and venerating their own.
Next Holdsworth argues that the Right has the more
traditional and common views of most people in the community. I agree that the
fringe ideas that the Right keeps harping on to heat up the culture wars are
not as universally supported, such as transgender people using washrooms and playing
competitive sports in their chosen gender group. But the basic platform of the
Left is widely supported by the majority of Americans. Things like: free
speech; free and fair elections; no hungry children; the right to a fair trial
if charged with a crime; the rule of law applying to everyone, rich and poor
alike; freedom of religion; fair wages; affordable housing and food; free good
quality public education and affordable college; clean air, water and
uncontaminated food; etc. Historically, views of the Left once considered
radical are now supported by the majority – abolishment of slavery; women
voting and owning property; Blacks and other visible minorities free from
discrimination in college and the workplace; unions to support workplace safety
and fair pay; regulation of manufactured items, including automobiles, for
safety and efficacy; regulation of banks and other businesses to prevent them
ripping off customers; and more. Republicans have been opposed to all of these,
and in many cases, still are. To me that makes them the radical out-of-touch
party.
Holdsworth then argues that if the positions of
right-wing speakers like Charlie Kirk are wrong, why does he win most of his
debates? On a podcast of The Left Hook
Katie Phang and Waj Ali covered that very question. Katie pointed out that Kirk
mostly debates unprepared college kids with his highly polished arguments. To
her knowledge Charlie Kirk never once went away from a debate admitting he was
wrong.
Holdsworth said the defining feature of the Left is that
it seeks change; the defining feature of the Right is it seeks stability.
Progressives want to make the world a better place. Conservatives want peace
and stability. That’s accurate as far as it goes but doesn’t explain why people
choose one or the other. Those with wealth and power want to keep it so they
are on the side of stability; those without either want change so they can
share in the good life (or just be able to feed their children).
Next Holdsworth states that the Left is too impatient
in wanting improvements. Changes to society takes time and diligence, he
argues, like exercising to get fit, it can’t happen overnight. Historically
social improvement requires patience and intermediate steps, and also can’t be
achieved by force. The Left wants
immediate reform, and if that doesn’t work, uses protests and resistance, and
if that doesn’t work, resorts to violence.
Holdsworth also stated that the common people are
always conservative, preferring peace and stability to progress. Really? I’m
not so sure.
As examples of this impatience and use of violence,
Holdsworth goes back in history to the French Revolution and the Russian
Revolution. Both were admittedly led by what would be considered the Left and
both were violent. They fit his narrative of the impatient Left resorting to
violence to achieve their goals. Perhaps in these examples most of the common
people did not support the radical leaders, I don’t know.
I thought it odd though, that as an American, he didn’t mention
the American Revolution or the American Civil War. In the first example the
Right would be represented by the British who wanted to maintain their power
over the American continent, and the rebellious Americans (the “Continental
Army” in their history books) represented the Left. I wonder if Holdsworth
prefers Canada’s long slow road to independence to the violent bloody road the
Americans took. Perhaps he does, but it would be considered treasonous for him to say
so. And does he believe that the common people opposed the Revolutionary War?
Many did, and fled to Canada – their loss, our gain.
The Civil War is another example. The Right would be
represented by the wealthy southern plantation owners who started the war to
preserve their privileged way of life which depended on slavery. Judging by the
display of confederate flags at Trump rallies, many on the Right regret the
outcome of that war. The Progressives who wanted to preserve the Union and
abolish slavery across the land tried political means first. And when that didn’t
work they were forced to respond with violence when the South declared war.
This brings up my next point, that it usually is the
Right who initiate violence to preserve their power, even when the Left does
not use violence. During the 1960s’ civil rights battles those advocating
voting and other rights for Blacks for the most part used non-violent means
like peaceful protest marches. They were met by violence from the Right who had
the marchers beaten and sometimes killed. Holdsworth argues that when the Left
resort to violence, the Right is forced to respond, but in many, if not most,
cases it is the Right that resort to violence first.
Change that benefits an oppressed group need not require violence to achieve but it does require pressure. Martin Luther King Jr. put it this way:
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.
Finally I want to deal with Holdsworth’s call for
patience in making societal improvements. It depends entirely on who has the
power and wealth. The Right who has the power and wealth doesn’t want change
and tries to persuade the Left to wait. The Left with hungry children can’t
afford to wait. How many more generations of slavery would there have been if
the South had been allowed to secede? Martin Luther King Jr. was frustrated
with people who kept telling him to just be patient and wait for change. In
response he wrote a book, published in 1964, that says it all: When Patience Becomes Complacency: Why We
Can’t Wait.
I will finish with a quote from MLK's Letter From A Birmingham Jail, 1963.
First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been
gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the
regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride
toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner,
but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who
prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace
which is the presence of justice...
