Mickey Kaus recently made a major boo-boo when he discussed intolerance and violence from the Left. While most of his thoughts are, well, thoughtful, he blew it big time when he let one of his readers get away with claiming that over the last three decades, most political violence has come from the Right because they've got the guns.
Uh, okay, I guess the "three decades" helps to fudge it a little, but not by much. Make that "three and a half decades" and the statement is outright laughable. Countless left-wing radicals in the 1960s and 1970s participated in bombings, cop-killings, and...
...intentionally-incited riots, like the one Tom Hayden went out of his way to provoke in Chicago (not that the late Mayor Daley didn't play perfectly into his hands).
The Symbionese Liberation Army were violent, murdering left-wing thugs, and were active well into the 1970s. Their slogan: "Death to the fascist insect that preys upon the life of the people!"
The Black Panthers were violent thugs throughout the 1970s and 1980s--hell, Huey Newton wasn't gunned down by his fellow thugs until 1989. Recently, the New Black Panthers have risen from his ashes, carrying guns and peddling the same socialist cant and racism that he did.
It was interesting to watch some in the left-wing press in the last decade or two whitewashing the reputation of Bernadine Dohrn, a '60s radical who, upon hearing of the Tate-Labianca murders committed by the Manson Family, got up on stage at a Students for a Democratic Society rally, made a devil-salute sign with her hand, and shouted: "Dig it! Manson killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they shoved a fork into a victim's stomach! Wild!" Said stomach being the very pregnant belly of Sharon Tate, in case you hadn't guessed. Vincent Bugliosi, the man who wrote the definitive book on the Manson Family, also quoted Dohrn as saying, "Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson." The Weathermen being, of course, a radical left-wing terrorist organization she helped found. They later went on to kill cops and blow up buildings, often with her hearty encouragement.
Dohrn is now a professor at Northwestern University in Chicago, and brags about giving speeches at Rainbow/PUSH coalition meetings and being featured in polite New York Times interviews.
The statement you hear most often uttered by the aplogists for Dohrn and others like her: "It was a different time." Apparently you can't be a terrorist if you smoked pot and opposed the war in Vietnam. Remember, it was the era of Peace, Love and Understanding, when we just wanted to end the war. "Come on people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together, off the pigs 'n blow up buildings, riot now?"
In the 1990s, it was appalling to watch most of the press characterize Ted Kaczynski, a.k.a. the Unabomber, as a "Right Wing Extremist." Anyone who read his Manifesto could see that he was an environmental extremist who hated modern industrialism, capitalism and traditional American values. One of the most hilarious artifacts of the 2000 campaign is the "Al Gore or the Unabomber?" Quiz, which puts quotes from the Unabomber's Manifesto and Gore's Earth in the Balance side-by-side and invites readers to guess which is which. I read Gore's book from cover to cover and was surprised to find I still got almost half my guesses wrong. Try it yourself.
This doesn't even mention the growing threat of eco-terrorism which, whatever some people's efforts to pooh-pooh it, has caused millions in property damage, destroyed scientific research meant to help the environment, and is almost certainly going to kill someone sooner or later. Arguably, it already did in Europe.
Some conservatives rant just a little too often about "liberal media bias," but it's hard not to notice that there's been a tendency by the press (and Hollywood) to whitewash the very violent legacy of '60s and '70s radicalism, and to paint all modern extremists as "right wing" regardless of their actual political leanings. There's also the more subtle but equally-problematic failure to note the left-leaning views of at least some of the scum who like to shoot people and blow things up. Some are definitely what we call "right wing," but let's not sweep the ones who aren't under the carpet, m'kay?
Lest we forget two other groups who pursue their agendas with allegedly non-violent but non the less socially disruptive forms of terrorism and manage to pull a lot of support from the left coast:
Act Up the in-yo-face anti-AIDs group (antithesis of all those pro-AIDs groups, I suppose) who interrupted Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral--an unjustifiable act of religious harassment worthy of the Nazis--who's apologists number among H'wood's best and brightest.
And PETA, the darling of veggies and contestants on Celebrity Jeopardy alike who don't want people in cold climates to protect themselves from Mother Nature or scientists to research cures for epidemics (like AIDs) by experimenting on animals (I suppose they'd prefer human experimentation like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.)
Hmmm, maybe we should turn Act Up loose on PETA!
Related point:
Mickey Kaus blog is almost -- almost! -- totally unreadable. I mean, it is just badly written. I think he's gotten worse over time (been reading him since 1999 or so.)
He ain't writing about rocket science. It should be a simple matter to follow the thread of his thinking, but N-O-O-O-o-o---oooo.
It's pretty bad.
I must take some exception to my friend Paul's mention of ACT-UP and PETA. While there are quite reasonable things for which to criticize these organizations, I don't believe PETA has advocated murdering people. ACT-UP, whatever its obnoxious behavior, hasn't shot anyone or blown up any buildings, even if some of its activists have implied that the Catholic Church is "responsible" for gay deaths because of its criticisms of gay sex and refusal to endorse condoms (as if having a priest not-endorse something can kill you).
At least one gay friend of mine claimed that ACT-UP apologized for some of its more obnoxious anti-Catholic actions and disavowed the members who did it, but I can't find anything on ACT-UP's site that specifically addresses that.
There is an article by Michael Bronski which defends ACT-UP, denying any catholic-bashing and implying that such claims are just fascistic smears by the "religious right." (Yawn.) On the other hand, Gregory Koukl defends the church against ACT-UP and others in an article for Stand to Reason which notes the obnoxious behavior of certain gay activists but doesn't accuse them of violence or murder.
You can decide where you stand, but I don't think throwing condoms into a church or advocating against animal testing quite rises to the level of terrorism, regardless of whatever else one may think of such things.
Mickey need only say "no justice, no peace".
End of discussion.
PETA or ACT UP differ from terrorist organizations only in that they do not practice or advocate violence (openly).
My main objective with the above comment was to draw attention to the parallels between their activities and rhetoric and the tolerance, nay apologetics heaped upon violent activists during the "radical chic" period of the late 60's and 70's. (Tom Wolfe's essay coining that phrase is a must read!)
But I maintain a group's advocacy of a legitimate agenda should not absolve them from rational behavior.
Furthermore, let me posit this: how does their form of socially disruptive behavior in a free society with guaranteed free speech, press and right to believe almost any damn thing you want as long as it neither picks the pocket or breaks the bones of your neighbor differentiated them from terrorists?
I maintain it is only their lack of a body count.
Paul's comment reminded me of a late 80s visit to UC Davis, where a friend of mine was doing AIDS research using rhesus monkeys. They had to have extra "anti-PETA" security, but he pointed out that the monkeys in the HIV/AIDS research program were the least likely to get released by a PETA assault. It may be purely anecdotal, but not at all surprising if true.
Dean, one correction--I was reading your note and saw the name "Gary Koukl," immediately thought, "Wow! Greg is the only Koukl I've ever heard of! I wonder if they're related." Then I saw "Stand to Reason" and realized that you meant Greg and he's still the only Koukl I know. I met him at a bioethics conference near Boulder in 2000, and again a year later in CO Springs. He's a good guy and you'd enjoy dialoguing with him.
http://www.calendarlive.com/top/1,1419,L-LATimes-Books-X!ArticleDetail-65961,00.html
Randy is, as usual, correct, and I've gone back and fixed my reference. It's Gregory Koukl, not "Gary" as I originally wrote it.
The article Mr. Hanks points us to is very good reading. I should also credit Kaus for pointint out this disturbing article about the assassination in Italy of two conservative economists who advocated moderate relaxation of Italy's labor standards.
Also, in defense of Paul's position (which I still think may be a little harsh), it was an environmental and animal-rights activist who killed Pim Fortuyn.
Also, animal-rights activists in Europe been doing things like using ax handles to beat the crap out of researchers, setting cars on fire, sinking boats, and so on. Mostly in Europe, so far.
By the way, Clay Waters has some amusing thoughts on a related tanget here.
Tremendously worded, keep up the tremendou work