Are "Progressives" and Democrats more prone to violence than those in other political groups?

This question has to be asked, given the Arizona shootings and a few of the discussions here that have followed.

It appears to me that the answer to this question is "yes."

Could a better question be: are "progressives" and democrats more prone to politically oriented violence than those in other political groups?

Do progressives feel more justified in committing violent acts because of their political beliefs? What with the whole "by any means necessary" philosophy.
-------------------------------------------------------

I found this article, which helps to summarize very well the notion that the perpetration of violence may be differentiated across political lines:

michellemalkin.com...

As I said last summer: “They cannot help themselves. Wasn’t it just a few hours ago that I blogged about another act of Democrat vandalism falsely blamed on the the Tea Party? Why yes, yes it was. From GOP fake hate crime hoaxer Ashley Todd to suicide census worker Bill Sparkman, there remains an unrestrained impulse among too many to falsely scream political violence when it doesn’t exist — and to ignore it where it does exist…But like I said just a few hours ago and like I’ll certainly have to say again and again and again in the future: Being a Tea Party-bashing liberal means never having to say you’re sorry for smearing conservative dissent.” Over to you, Krugman and Company. *** “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” — Not Sarah Palin Get out there and “punish our enemies” — Not Mitch McConnell “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!” — Not Rush Limbaugh “Punch back twice as hard.” – Not John Boehner I want to know “whose ass to kick” — Not Sean Hannity “…I’m itching for a fight.” – Yep, him again

-------------------------------------------------------

I would further offer for consideration the politically and culturally motivated violence - riots, shootings and bombings - carried out by the progressive "activitsts" of the SDS and the Weather Underground of the 1960s, some of whom occupy high federal office as Obama appointees.

Objectively, it does appear to me that more politically oriented crime, and perhaps crime in general, is carried out by your so-called democratic "progressives." Tell me how I'm wrong (or right).

Thanks.

When a progressive wreaks more havoc than the Republican Timothy McVeigh, then you may have an argument. The fact is there are radicals from every political ideology. Assigning a degree of violence to a one political party over another is ludicrous.

reply to post by Aggie Man


Your McVeigh point is a good one. Thanks.

First of all, Timothy McVeigh was no conservative or Republican. He was a nut. He didn't do what he did because he may (or may not) have voted Republican. He believed the entire government needed changing.

Second, I find it hard to believe one side is more prone to violence than the other. People are people and nuts are nuts.

While your source is sketchy at best and your title indicates there is a left/right paradigm, history has shown that those wishing to help the greater good are generally the first to use a truncheon to achieve their goal.

Those who believe they know what is best for everyone else tend to be megalomaniacs and find anyone who disagrees with their perception of what is the greater good as an enemy to be eradicated....for the greater good.

History is replete with examples of such and yet here we are today repeating history without learning from it.

One of the first hallmarks of these "greater good" types is disarming their people. Once the people are disarmed they are more easily "persuaded" about the ideology of the supposed benefactor wishing for the greater good. Interestingly enough, these wonderful supporters of humanity always have a well armed group to "convince" others of their good will and have no problems removing the detractors from any semblance of discourse...for the greater good.

Demoncrats/Rethuglicans are two peas in a pod that have the same goal but utilize different means to achieve their goals. In the end, both want a subjected populace that does as it's told, when it's told and those who disagree are met by the "enforcers" of the good will that is spewed from the lips of whichever is running the show at the time.

Within the Progressive movement(Which is NOT I repeat NOT the same thing as Liberal Democrats)there are plenty of people who would just as soon string up a righty as would neo-cons against lefties.


I've spent the entire Loughner issue giving the left crap for being vampires over this... They decided to use the narrative and they're getting bit in the ass for it, and rightly so.

But I am NOT going to perpetuate this idea based on the current narrative that this has anything to do with progressives either. We have GOT to stop doing this crap. The more we point the finger at what is otherwise toothless rhetoric on both sides of the political spectrum the higher the danger that the clamor for the curtailing of free speech will intensify.

I'm not going to contribute to that. Even though my distaste for progressives(AGAIN not the same as democrats)may want to rationalize the justification for it.

An interesting read to add to your "objectivity"
www.huffingtonpost.com...

Anti-immigration: “Rightwing extremist groups’ frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence. If such violence were to occur, it likely would be isolated, small-scale, and directed at specific immigration-related targets.”

Recruiting returning vets: “Rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat.”
Gun-related violence: “Heightened interest in legislation for tighter firearms...may be invigorating rightwing extremist activity, specifically the white supremacist and militia movements.”

Homeland Security Post

Let's see. Here is a list of terrorist attacks committed by RW loons since the OC bombings in the US.

www.splcenter.org...

Can you cite as many ( or, for that matter) any counterexamples from the left? (From that time period).

And since you're making an empirical claim - care to link me to the study that establishes that violent political acts by progressives are more common than those commited by RWers? I kind of doubt you can.

Of course we can go back to citing Uncle Joe and Mao as examples of "progressive" violence - but for every one of these there's a Trujillo, Pinochet or Horty. This kind of example would miss the point anyways: The claim is that grass-roots violence is more often commited by "progressives" than by "RW"ers. I've cited a list with RW terrorism since the mid-90's. I'd be interested in a legit counterexample.

Anyway - I do see some connections between certain Right-Wing ideas, especially Libertarian and Conspirational ones and Jared the Psycho Killer. But he doesn't strike me as the typical partisan fanatic in what I've read from and about him. But I don't believe he would have shot Giffords if she would have been known for believing the federal government to be illegal or if she would have been in favor of abolishing or auditing the fed....

Just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by projectvxn
But I am NOT going to perpetuate this idea based on the current narrative that this has anything to
do with progressives either. We have GOT to stop doing this crap. The more we point the finger at what
is otherwise toothless rhetoric on both sides of the political spectrum the higher the danger that the clamor
for the curtailing of free speech will intensify.

Stereotyping leads to wrong thought.

reply to post by speculativeoptimist

Not enough research or objectivity....

Out of curiosity, how is the HuffPo objective?

They were among the first to run with the "Tea Party/Palin did it" narrative...

reply to post by projectvxn

Huffo would be "included" in an objective perspective, both sides, no?
Believe me, I know she is one sided, but I added it to the mix for balance to the Op's sourcing.
The part in the article I am referring to is the Homeland Security release regarding right wing extremism.

Originally posted by MMPI2
This question has to be asked, given the Arizona shootings and a few of the discussions here that have followed.

How does politics relate to the AZ shooting, exactly?

Not that politics has anything to do with it, but the shooter was registered as a Republican and he shot a Democrat.

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin

Let's see. Here is a list of terrorist attacks committed by RW loons since the OC bombings in the US.

www.splcenter.org...

If there were ever a less reputable source than what you've provided, it could only be the ADL.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by MMPI2
This question has to be asked, given the Arizona shootings and a few of the discussions here that have followed.

How does politics relate to the AZ shooting, exactly?

Not that politics has anything to do with it, but the shooter was registered as a Republican and he shot a Democrat.

FALSE! He was registered as an independent.

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


Fair enough.

I don't care if the HuffPo is one sided. You are not required to be unbiased in this issue and neither are they...Just wanted some clarity on what you meant.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by speculativeoptimist

 

Not enough research or objectivity....

Out of curiosity, how is the HuffPo objective?

They were among the first to run with the "Tea Party/Palin did it" narrative...

The exact same way Michelle Malkin is objective.
Guess you were OK with that though?

reply to post by Sinnthia

The exact same way Michelle Malkin is objective.
Guess you were OK with that though?

Indeed I was. I'm not objective.

My original post:

Out of curiosity, how is the HuffPo objective?

They were among the first to run with the "Tea Party/Palin did it" narrative...

The reply:

Huffo would be "included" in an objective perspective, both sides, no?
Believe me, I know she is one sided, but I added it to the mix for balance to the Op's sourcing.
The part in the article I am referring to is the Homeland Security release regarding right wing extremism.

My reply to that reply:

Fair enough.

I don't care if the HuffPo is one sided. You are not required to be unbiased in this issue and neither are they...Just wanted some clarity on what you meant.

Helps to read more than the first 6 posts in the thread.

Originally posted by bozzchem
FALSE! He was registered as an independent.

Interesting... In 2006, this form shows him as a Republican. Where's the form that shows he was an Independent?

Originally posted by Sinnthia

The exact same way Michelle Malkin is objective.
Guess you were OK with that though?

Malkin objective??? She's no more objective than Olbermann or Matthews. All are talking heads who make their money spouting the bile from the side they have chosen while assuming those who hear their crap aren't intelligent enough to research and form an opinion for themselves.

Originally posted by projectvxn
Indeed I was. I'm not objective.

My original post:

Out of curiosity, how is the HuffPo objective?

They were among the first to run with the "Tea Party/Palin did it" narrative...

Did you read what you were replying to?

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
An interesting read to add to your "objectivity"
www.huffingtonpost.com...

Objectivity is in quotes and huffpo is offered up to ADD. It makes perfect sense to me. You question does not.

The reply:

Huffo would be "included" in an objective perspective, both sides, no?
Believe me, I know she is one sided, but I added it to the mix for balance to the Op's sourcing.
The part in the article I am referring to is the Homeland Security release regarding right wing extremism.

My reply to that reply:

Fair enough.

I don't care if the HuffPo is one sided. You are not required to be unbiased in this issue and neither are they...Just wanted some clarity on what you meant.

Helps to read more than the first 6 posts in the thread.

edit on 11-1-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-1-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

Go back and read the post you replied to to ask your question about 6 times and then come back and tell me how to read.