If you’ve noticed a shift over the last week or so in the way violent extremism is being covered, you’re not alone.
Conservative writer John Hayward has noticed it, too, and he’s put together an important thread examining the effects of Democrats and media’s highly subjective attitudes toward political violence:
Ever since 9/11, we've been instructed that tiny minorities of extremists are solely responsible for their reprehensible actions. There was no greater sin than blaming law-abiding people who share some of their beliefs.
— John Hayward (@Doc_0) January 13, 2021
That's how we got the "lone wolf terrorist" cliche. A great herd of lone wolves swept across the world, each completely isolated from anything but the most direct support for their heinous deeds. "Tiny minorities of extremists" were blamed for "hijacking" the beliefs of millions.
— John Hayward (@Doc_0) January 13, 2021
The Western world did backflips to completely firewall the actions of terrorists from the larger bodies of people they claimed to represent. We hired a legion of consultants to show us exactly where the line between extremism and legitimate belief was drawn.
— John Hayward (@Doc_0) January 13, 2021
We wouldn't even name the adversaries of civilization. We declared a "global war" on their methods, to avoid criticizing their beliefs. The Obama administration launched a huge, expensive "Countering Violent Extremism" initiative that pointedly treated extremism as generic.
— John Hayward (@Doc_0) January 13, 2021
The greatest of pains were taken to draw very sharp and bright lines between violent extremism and even the most provocative and incendiary acts of legitimate speech and political organization. This was true of the race riots in the Obama years, as well as terrorism.
— John Hayward (@Doc_0) January 13, 2021
Recommended
Anyone who blamed the most fiery voices of racial hatred for inciting violence – even the ones who blatantly and repeatedly lied about the details of racially-charged criminal incidents, for the express purpose of whipping up violent hatred – was harshly slapped down.
— John Hayward (@Doc_0) January 13, 2021
This extended to the gigantic media apparatus that enthusiastically perpetuated the most divisive narratives and incendiary lies. We were not supposed to blame them for inciting violence in their mad rush for ratings and political gain.
— John Hayward (@Doc_0) January 13, 2021
This doctrine continued even after physical and verbal harassment was directed at Trump administration officials, and even after attempts were made to murder Republican lawmakers. Don't you DARE link those actions to the extremist rhetoric of Democrats and the media!
— John Hayward (@Doc_0) January 13, 2021
The media, and much of the left-wing Internet, actually thought it was amusing when Trump administration officials – even female ones – were confronted with violent threats from people hopped up on extreme Democrat rhetoric. No "safe spaces" for THOSE people!
— John Hayward (@Doc_0) January 13, 2021
Part of this strict division between heated rhetoric and violent extremism flows from the principle of zero tolerance for political violence. If you're going to have zero tolerance for something, it follows that you must define it very precisely. The line must be drawn clearly.
— John Hayward (@Doc_0) January 13, 2021
Part of this strict division between heated rhetoric and violent extremism flows from the principle of zero tolerance for political violence. If you're going to have zero tolerance for something, it follows that you must define it very precisely. The line must be drawn clearly.
— John Hayward (@Doc_0) January 13, 2021
As we were told a thousand times after 9/11, if the line between legitimate expression and terrorism is not drawn very clearly, the actions of terrorists could be used to discredit, harass, and persecute law-abiding people. Likewise with rioters and looters vs. "activists."
— John Hayward (@Doc_0) January 13, 2021
As soon as someone steps across that line, they become a criminal, not an activist – and the people who stayed on the right side of the line were to be held completely blameless for their actions. Only the most explicit calls for violence should be denounced and punished.
— John Hayward (@Doc_0) January 13, 2021
During the racially charged riots of the Obama and Trump eras, we were told that even wildly out-of-control street actions that spawned riots and killings were beyond criticism. Only the specific people who looted and killed were to blame, and even THEY deserved latitude.
— John Hayward (@Doc_0) January 13, 2021
It was absolutely unthinkable to blame the people who organized those "protests," no matter how frequently they erupted into violence and destruction, as long as they didn't directly order destruction and murder in very specific terms. Otherwise they were legit "activists."
— John Hayward (@Doc_0) January 13, 2021
The speed with which that decades-old principle has been abandoned is breathtaking, and clearly indicates it was never a serious principle to begin with. But we SHOULD be absolutely intolerant of political violence, and very clear about where the line is drawn. /end
— John Hayward (@Doc_0) January 13, 2021
Well said.
What a perfect summary. Good thread.
— Marc Wilson (@CoachMarcWilson) January 13, 2021
There’s been a clear double standard here.
That said, though, Hayward is absolutely correct when he says that we cannot and should not tolerate political violence. The lines we draw need to mean something. And we have to hold perpetrators of political violence to account no matter what.