Continuing this thread concerning recent violence in places of education, Peter Reinart of The Atlantic captures the heart of the antifa movement on the far left – and how they fuel the grievances of the right. It’s a fascinating look into how the extremist elements of both ends of the political spectrum tend to look a great deal alike. I think Peter nails it here:
What’s eroding in Portland is the quality Max Weber considered essential to a functioning state: a monopoly on legitimate violence. As members of a largely anarchist movement, antifascists don’t want the government to stop white supremacists from gathering. They want to do so themselves, rendering the government impotent. With help from other left-wing activists, they’re already having some success at disrupting government. Demonstrators have interrupted so many city-council meetings that in February, the council met behind locked doors. In February and March, activists protesting police violence and the city’s investments in the Dakota Access Pipeline hounded Mayor Ted Wheeler so persistently at his home that he took refuge in a hotel. The fateful email to parade organizers warned, “The police cannot stop us from shutting down roads.”
The return email is “You can’t stop us from arresting your punk asses for harassment of government officials and dumping you in prison for a few years.” I’ve never had much patience for the anarchist movement, as it seems to be predicated on the philosophy that humans aren’t humans. They find themselves applying violence to gain their goal, and then applying more violence to retain their goal. Might as well just call it a gang war and be done with it. Peter continues:
Antifa believes it is pursuing the opposite of authoritarianism. Many of its activists oppose the very notion of a centralized state. But in the name of protecting the vulnerable, antifascists have granted themselves the authority to decide which Americans may publicly assemble and which may not. That authority rests on no democratic foundation. Unlike the politicians they revile, the men and women of antifa cannot be voted out of office. Generally, they don’t even disclose their names.Antifa’s perceived legitimacy is inversely correlated with the government’s. Which is why, in the Trump era, the movement is growing like never before. As the president derides and subverts liberal-democratic norms, progressives face a choice. They can recommit to the rules of fair play, and try to limit the president’s corrosive effect, though they will often fail. Or they can, in revulsion or fear or righteous rage, try to deny racists and Trump supporters their political rights. From Middlebury to Berkeley to Portland, the latter approach is on the rise, especially among young people.Revulsion, fear, and rage are understandable. But one thing is clear. The people preventing Republicans from safely assembling on the streets of Portland may consider themselves fierce opponents of the authoritarianism growing on the American right. In truth, however, they are its unlikeliest allies.
Right. Peter notes the standard liberal response to these sorts of things is “… appeals to reason”. In today’s world, to ‘reason’ I’d add ‘shame.’ The shame of having voted for an incompetent man-child, the shame of having voted for someone who appears to have great sympathy for one of the most evil of groups – the racists, to keep it to a single word. Frankly, I’m surprised the evangelicals who voted for Trump, such as Falwell of Liberty University, haven’t died of shame. I do understand a few graduates of Liberty are preparing to mail their diplomas back to Liberty out of disgust.
But the antifa, which are, from my understanding, largely drawn from universities, should be equally ashamed, as they’re betraying the very institutions to which they are attending. Institutions of education are, by their very nature, non-violent places for the exchange of information and learning how to think; war is in honest debate, where losers acknowledge their losses and correct their thinking.
The antifa has little connection to such a philosophy. So I fear we may see the two sides joyfully engaging in combat until they’re worn out, their ranks thinned by casualties and – gasp! – members finally maturing and leaving those organizations in search of something better.
Which they may find in democratic institutions. In an imperfect world, for all the imperfections Democracy offers, at least it has resilience, checks and balances, and a slant against the private use of violence to settle disputes. I have seen nothing better.
