Antecedents to Consequence

Joan of Arc is the fictionalized memoir of a contemporary of Saint Joan's, which Twain described as the "best of all my books." Some literary critics agree, but others have problems with the novel because they doubt Saint Joan's visions as antecedents to the consequences that played out in Joan's real life. As the author of the Introduction states, 

Readers who can accept the historical validity of Joan's visions will be able to read the fictional memoir in an historical way, that is, according to the ordinary way history proceeds, by antecedent to consequence.

The events of the past week in our nation's capitol bear examination by the light of their antecedents, and the reaction to those events might be considered as antecedents to future consequences. I won't pretend to be thorough in this post, I only present my thoughts in brief now before they are overcome by further events.

The Capitol crimes were preceded by months of social and political disruption due to COVID-19 and BLM/antifa riots, and the model for the events of the day was established in Portland, Seattle, Chicago, New York, and Kenosha, to name several. I needn't recount the details. And before that? Ferguson, and Occupy Wall Street. It isn't the Tea Party that established political violence and destruction as the means to ends. It was the Left and its useful idiots, among whom we can count the president-elect and vice-president-elect.

Last week was tragic on many levels. As the blogger at The New Reform Club noted,

Nihilism is what is killing our democracy. The leftists who toppled statutes believe, because they are taught to believe, that the people the statues depict – the people who founded our country – hated them. And thus that the country itself hates them. The Trump supporters who invaded the Capitol believe – because the people in that very building told them – that the people in that building, who run this country today, hate them. A country cannot have peace while its government tells its people the country hates them. Yet our government has managed to tell both halves of its divided nation that they are hated. If there were a Darwin Award for governments, the American political establishment would be tough to beat. 

 Read the whole thing. 

This spirit of hatred, accusation, unforgiveness -- murder, in the end -- must necessarily precede violence. What did we expect? Which begs the question, what do we expect from the (over-)reaction to January 6, 2021? 

It's my belief the violence will only be stoked by reactions like that of the Editor in Chief of Ricochet. A people stricken by the last year of disease, joblessness, personal and professional loss, and a significant loss of freedom, are given the message they're hate-worthy because of the misguided actions of a few. That they're unworthy of the representation of their choice and that they must be silenced for the "common" good.

While I believe the hatred of Donald Trump is mostly irrational, I will hold him responsible in one way, suggested by Elder Daughter: he should have said some time shortly after the election, "if I must leave office, I will do so peacefully." He needed to reassure the hysterical Nevers who've always exhibited a bad-faith belief in the worst of him (he's a Russian agent, he threatened Ukraine for personal political gain, he believes neo-Nazis are "good people" on both sides -- all lies), and he needed to signal to his supporters that this would be an orderly transition one way or another. Not saying so was irresponsible and unwise.

But, I am in agreement with Dennis Prager when he says "it matters who starts it" (a conflict). The breakdown of the rule of law and civil society was started by the Left. The Left has spent decades corrupting our institutions and destroying the public trust. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (both of whom corrupted our government and deserve prosecution more than Donald Trump ever will) signaled their hatred of ordinary Americans with "bitter clingers" and "basket of deplorables." Have candidates for high office ever spoken of people they hope to govern that way before? I suppose so, but I don't know of examples.

I agree with the blogger at The New Reform Club that rough speech is preferable to political violence. I expect most of us on the Right do. Too bad the Left, Big Tech, and the ruling elites prefer suppression of dissident speech. I predict they're going to get more political violence as a consequence -- and so will we all.