The Left’s History of Violence

 

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, uses 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 that, as an American, he didn’t mention the American Revolution and 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, 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.

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.