Etiquette



DP Etiquette

First rule: Don't be a jackass.

Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.

Tuesday, May 16, 2023

Virginia Representative's Staffers Attacked: The Rise of Political Violence and Its Chilling Effect on Free Speech

 Just a few days ago I posted an OP on Trump and the rise of political violence  in the US in recent years, especially on the far right. I mentioned the would-be assassin who broke into Nancy Pelosi's house to kill her, and while grilling the husband over her whereabouts struck him on the head with a hammer. Well, a few hours ago I read a news article in the WS Journal about what they described as "the latest in a string of violent episodes targeting congress members." What follows is a transcript of the short but disturbing article. -- PD

 


Two of Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly’s Staffers Attacked With a Baseball Bat

The attacker went to the congressman’s Fairfax office and asked for him, the Democrat says

 WSJ: 5/15/23

An assailant armed with a metal baseball bat attacked two staffers at Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly’s office, authorities said Monday, the latest in a string of violent episodes targeting Congress members.

Mr. Connolly, a Democrat, said staff members from his Fairfax, Va., office were taken to a hospital in non-life-threatening condition. The attacker is in police custody, he said.

“The thought that someone would take advantage of my staff’s accessibility to commit an act of violence is unconscionable and devastating,” Mr. Connolly said.

Mr. Connolly wasn’t at the office at the time of the Monday morning incident, the U.S. Capitol Police said.

The suspect was identified as 49-year old Xuan Kha Tran Pham of Fairfax, according to Capitol Police. He faces one count of aggravated malicious wounding and one count of malicious wounding.

Authorities said the suspect’s motivation wasn’t immediately clear.

The Capitol Police and the Fairfax City Police Department are investigating the attack, authorities said. Fairfax police responded and arrested the suspect.

Mr. Connolly and authorities didn’t name the injured staff members.

Mr. Connolly, 73 years old, has represented parts of Northern Virginia, outside Washington, D.C., since 2009.

The attack on Mr. Connolly’s staff members is the latest in a string of violent episodes involving members of Congress. U.S. lawmakers in recent years have said they are worried heated rhetoric has stoked rising violence against politicians.

The U.S. Capitol Police, which is responsible for protecting members of Congress, said it has investigated a record number of threats and concerning statements in recent years. The agency said it investigated more than 7,500 cases last year compared with about 3,900 in 2017.

Democratic and Republican members received a similar number of threats, the Capitol Police said.

“One of the biggest challenges we face today is dealing with the sheer increase in the number of threats against members of Congress,” said Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger. “Over the course of the last year, the world has continuously changed, becoming more violent and uncertain.”

Congress members have expressed concern about their security arrangements. The most senior legislative leaders, including the House Speaker, typically have security details while they are in the Capitol or traveling. Most of the 535 House and Senate members don’t have the same level of protection, nor do their family members.

An armed man broke into Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco house last year looking for the former House Speaker. She wasn’t home and the intruder instead attacked her husband, Paul Pelosi, with a hammer. Mr. Pelosi’s skull was fractured in two places. Federal prosecutors charged the intruder with assault and attempted kidnapping.

GOP lawmakers, including Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, were shot at during a 2017 baseball practice in Virginia. Mr. Scalise, then the House majority whip, was shot once in the left hip and underwent multiple surgeries. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona was shot in the head by a gunman in 2011 during a community event. More than a dozen other people were shot and six of them were killed. Ms. Giffords, a Democrat, resigned from Congress a year later to focus on her recovery and is now a gun-control advocate.

__________________________________________

 The details  regarding motives, possible ties to a political group/groups that espouse violence, details about the suspect, et al., are not yet in. But it certainly sounds like yet another example of the disturbing rise pattern of political violence  on the Right, which has scared and intimidated our duly elected representatives. As the article points out, for every successful attack there are hundreds of threats. The Capitol Police, as stated above, investigated 7,500 threats and/or "statements of concern" in 2022-- a number that has been steadily rising since DJT's first year in office in 2017, when there were 3,900  threats and/or "statements of concern" credible enough to warrant Capitol Police investigations. I'm sure we'll learn more about the assailant  in the coming hours and days. At this point, I reprinted the piece here as a companion to the OP I wrote on political violence on the far right rising steeply in this country. Whether or not there will be another attempt to overturn the election, these acts of violence surely have  the potential to chill free and open exchange in Congress, and thus in the country. That is one of the objectives of such political violence-- and the security of our Reps is inversely related to the confidence we as a nation can have in the ability to speak about politically contested ideas without fear of retribution.

Coincidentally, at a medical appointment on Monday, the topic of aggression and threats over political issues in the news came up. "At this point," my Doctor volunteered, "I've simply chosen to keep my opinion to myself, because almost any topic in the news often gets politicized, tempers flare and things get out of hand. I value my peace and safety." I understood that response, but held back my own thought which was "Yeah, but to the extent that you feel the need to self-censor to avoid potential conflicts, your free speech which is constitutionally guaranteed has been effectively chilled."

While some of this chilling effect comes from the proliferation of censorious bans and legal codifications of  "traditional" morality, the foot-soldiers, as it were, reinforce this climate of fear by issuing unprecedented numbers of threats to (mostly) Democrats in Congress, and also at state and local levels.  The combination has the potential (should it increase) to stifle the health of our polity which is based very fundamentally on a commitment to free and open exchange of views, values, policies and the  like-- the very heart and soul of liberal democracy (not "Liberalism" as a "Left Wing" ideology, but foundational classical liberalism of the kind John Stuart Mill in England and our own John Dewey in the 20th century championed. This was a time when their faces graced postage stamps, and free speech did not mean "stuff I agree with and am willing to tolerate." 


Nor is the Left completely innocent in all of this. Though there is nothing close to an equivalence when it comes to the use of violence and threats aimed at shutting down discourse, there really is an uptick in  intimidation of and threats against Right  Wing culture warriors while hypocritically, some self-described "progressives" assume that their own values and beliefs are politically and legally privileged/protected while much of what Right Wing culture warriors say is not protected free speech. This reveals a poor understanding of the principles undergirding the first amendment imo. But again,  there is really no comparison between the admittedly misguided progressives (which is not to say all progressives are misguided and intolerant; only some of them are that way). I mention it not only in the name of fairness, but because I believe that in different ways and to different extents, both the Left and Right have become too rigidly dug in to their positions, and act as though these aren't just "positions" but sacrosanct beliefs and laws. The chasm between the zealots on each side continues to widen with each passing year, and though there are still  some fairly tolerant and Dems committed to open exchange, there are also an increasing number of zealous and intolerant Dems who contribute in their own way to the stifling of democratic discourse-- the free and open exchange of ideas and policy preferences -- without fear of being harassed,  threatened,  and/or  stymied in the process. 

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

What are your thoughts?


Related readings: 

Experts say attacks on free speech are risig across the US (PBS 3/23)


The Rise in Political Violence in the United States and Damage to our Democracy  (Prof. Rachael Kleinfeld's Congressional testimony before the 1/6  Select Committee to Investigatr the Jan. 6 Attack on the United States Capitol:  published by the Carnegie Endowment to for International Piece)



 

No comments:

Post a Comment