No one was injured in the shootings, which occurred in Albuquerque between Dec. 4 and Thursday. The authorities are investigating whether they were related and politically motivated.No one was injured in the shootings in Albuquerque involving three residences, a workplace and a campaign office associated with a pair of county commissioners, two state senators and New Mexico’s newly elected attorney general. Three of the shootings took place in December and two this month, the latest of which was on Thursday, the authorities said.
The Albuquerque police chief, Harold Medina, said at a news conference on Thursday that there could be a pattern to the shootings, possibly tied to political affiliation.
The department did not announce the shootings earlier, he said, because it was not clear in December whether there might be a pattern.
Mayor Tim Keller of Albuquerque said the authorities were concerned that the shootings might have been targeted and were “possibly politically motivated.”
So far, there are no suspects in custody. The shootings could be by one or more individuals or groups. It could be by a single insane person. The shootings could be by an enraged communist who thinks that Democrats are tyrants. Or it could be a rabid Christian nationalist who thinks that Democrats are pedophilic, cannibalistic agents of Satan who have been vaccinated against Satan’s atheism-inducing COVID vaccine. There are all kinds of angry nutjobs, freaks, cranks and crackpots out there who could have done this. So, there’s all of that.
But -- there is almost always a but. But, relevant political circumstances here include normalization of violence, intolerant extremism and publicly expressed hate of liberals and Democrats by some of America’s fascist radical right. The first thought that comes to mind is that the shootings are politically motivated by a Republican fascist or Christofascist. Political circumstances also include these public comments by Faux News very own Tucker Carlson, arguably the current leading propagandist, liar and slanderer working for American fascism:
“That loathing [of liberals] clouded my judgment. I was like, ‘I dislike these people so much. What they’re doing is so wrong. It is helping so few people and hurting so many. It’s so immoral on every level that I just want it to be repudiated.’ And I wanted that so much, not because I like the Republicans — I really dislike them more than I ever have [he is a liar on this point] — but I dislike the other side more. I did learn that, like, I have no freaking idea what goes on in American politics.[he is a liar on this point -- he knows exactly what is going on]”
One can reasonably ask if it is irrational, unfair, wrong and/or unwise to immediately jump to the conclusion that one or more fascist Republicans are responsible for this violence. Maybe that is more true than false. But in view of the poisoned, radicalized politics and polarizing propaganda the radical right has fomented for decades, why give fascism or the fascists the benefit of one shred of doubt? If evidence comes to light that these shootings were not by a politically motivated fascist, then this initial conclusion will be wrong. This is just a matter of the radical right reaping one of the important things it has ruthlessly sown for decades, namely distrust.
Qs: What harm is there in drawing what appears to be a reasonable initial conclusion and then revising it if contradictory evidence comes to light? Is that more anti-democracy than pro-democracy, or is it mostly democracy-neutral?
Democratic New Mexico State Senator Linda Lopez
Eight shots were fired at her home in Albuquerque on Tuesday
-------------------------
-------------------------
A historian’s take on the dangerous state of American politics: A NYT opinion by Yale history professor Joanne Freeman discusses the election of McCarthy to House Speaker. She is an expert on political violence in American politics. She writes:
It’s Tempting to Laugh at McCarthy’s Struggles,but History Shows That This Type of Chaos Is Not a JokeIn recent days, we’ve watched congressional Republicans reap the whirlwind. In campaigning for the 2022 midterm elections, the G.O.P. rode a wave of extremism, saying little about the politics of hate and denial practiced by some of its candidates in an effort to capture votes.
The party is now paying a price for its silence. Its members are grappling with the reality of working with people who loudly and proudly challenge political institutions and the democratic process — in a democratic institution. During the speakership battle, that small group of extremists held the House of Representatives hostage.This was far from the first time the House was mired in a stalemate over the speakership. It’s the 15th such battle in Congress’s history, and the ninth time that electing a speaker required more than three ballots.There’s little good faith in today’s House. After years of election denial, promises broken and lies abounding, the left has little faith in the right. And some parts of the right have little trust in their own most extreme members who skillfully practice a politics of personality — playing to their constituents and to the nation at large with sweeping claims and broad denials, personal attacks on the opposition, and a willingness to upset core tenets of democracy, all with joyful exuberance at damage done.
The resulting speakership struggle was not about an issue. It was not about a policy. It was about power. Kevin McCarthy’s reported concession to empower the extreme right by making it easier to oust him as speaker was a surrender of power — and that’s all a potential speaker has to offer in today’s political climate. Promises to support key bills or logrolling mean nothing in a party that has very little real planned legislation and very few policies.It’s tempting to laugh at the strut and fret that took place in the House, much of it seemingly signifying nothing. But it was not just theatrics, and it was not a joke. It was a symptom of a dysfunctional party that is questionably anchored in a democratic politics, and a glaringly obvious sign of things to come. Given Mike Rogers’s near-lunge at Matt Gaetz on Friday night, it’s also an eerie echo of things past.**
** That refers to previous instances where the House could not decide on a Speaker due to policy differences, most prominently over the fate of slavery. Physical fights in the House occurred. Here, the GOP fight was over power, not policy, making this much more dangerous than past fights. In authoritarian regimes, power is king, while in democracies, policy is supposed to be king.
The House has elected a speaker, but that won’t put an end to the internecine Republican battles. They will continue, entangling Congress and stymieing national politics in the process. Politics is a team sport that requires captains, congressional politics, even more so. Today’s congressional Republicans are not a team; they have no captain and they have displayed their failings for all the world to see.In effect, we’re witnessing the rupture of the Republican Party, the ultimate outcome of Republicans’ continuing failure to stand up to the extremism in their ranks. In choosing to remain silent in the face of their right wing’s politics of destruction, they have essentially endorsed it. Their silence in the face of Donald Trump’s lies and his election loss denial did much the same, laying the groundwork for the upheaval that we’re watching now.It’s encouraging to think that there are moderate Republicans who don’t support this brand of politics. There are certainly many. But until they organize themselves and oppose their in-house opposition, they’re pushing the nation ever closer to a dangerous edge — and defining the Republican Party in the process.
Q: Is Dr. Freeman correct to say that there are many moderate Republicans in power, or are most of moderate Republicans gone, having been RINO hunted out of power like Liz Cheney? Exactly what is a moderate Republican these days?
No comments:
Post a Comment