[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

Last week, Lawrence Haws wrote me to point out this post, which is — well, it’s what it is. As best I can untangle the logic, Lynxx Pherrett thinks that right wing talk radio isn’t creating a culture of violence because Andrew McCrae was a leftist. There’s also a lot of really flawed rhetoric about how our colleges are producing left-wing assassins by the boatload…

OK, I‘m going to digress here for a moment. I experienced Harvard’s General Education program, as it happens, and not only did I not become a brainwashed leftist cop-killer, I remember what General Education courses I took. One of these, which was and is the largest course at Harvard, was Michael Sandel’s Justice. Michael Sandel teaches an unrepentantly communitarianist theory of justice; a large portion of the course is dedicated to refuting the theories of John Rawls, patron saint of modern liberalism. It is difficult, to say the least, to reconcile the popularity of a course which preaches the importance of society with claims that Harvard’s General Education curriculum is a breeding ground for dangerous loners.

Also exceedingly popular: Roderick MacFarquhar’s course on the Cultural Revolution. It was an unstinting look at the horrors of Mao’s Cultural Revolution. I find it very hard to convince myself that MacFarquhar’s stinging condemnations of Mao cause fond affection for Communism.

Digression over. That wasn’t actually the point of the post; I just couldn’t help but point out that the Harvard curriculum of the late 1950s may not actually accurately model today’s Harvard curriculum.

What I did take out of Pherrett’s post is that there are, in this country, left-wing terrorists. But I already knew that. There are fanatics on both sides of the political spectrum, and some percentage of them are inclined to kill. I wrote back to Lawrence with some extended musings on this topic, and let the topic kind of percolate for a bit.

Then, on Monday, I read the latest post on Orcinus. It exposes his personal reasons for his crusade; I found it remarkably open, exposed reading. Worth reading just for the integrity. It also got my thoughts back on this longwinded post I’m constructing here.

One of the things he talks about, after acknowleding that there are fanatics on the left, is the preponderance of violent right wing rhetoric. He knows, as do I, that there are repellent people on the left — “In my view, Stalinist Communism is the epitome of the blinkered, anti-personal ideology of the left, and I’ve always been a fairly severe anti-Communist.” I suspect he would acknowledge that the rhetoric of groups like ANSWER influenced Andrew McCrae. But McCrae is only one person.

A single loner doesn’t mean the left is as dangerous as the right. I’ll see your McCrae and raise you a Carl Drega. Have an Eric Rudolph. Remember the murder of Alan Berg. Look up Buford Furrow. Read about these forty men.

The right doesn’t have a monopoly on hatred in this country. Thirty years ago, our domestic terrorists were the left-wing Weathermen and the Symbionese Liberation Army. Thirty years from now, radical environmentalists may embrace terrorist tactics wholeheartedly.

But that’s then. This is now. I am a minarchist, and I have great sympathy for those who feel the government has too many tendrils in private life. This does not stop me from thinking that violence is the wrong solution for the problem as it exists in America today. And when I look around to see where the violence comes from — today, now — I see the terrorist right.

Comments

[rmd.livejournal.com]

yeah. the pendulum can swing back towards the middle ANY DAY NOW, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[bryant]

Heh.

So I was reading Dan Kennedy the other day, and he argues that there can't be liberal talk radio because "talk radio appeals inherently to conservatives and libertarians more than it does to liberals and leftists." And I go "dude. Talk radio used to be totally liberal. There are angry liberals too. Not all liberals drink coffee and nibble brie."

But I just said it to my computer, so it probably didn't help.

[gentlyepigrams]

I don't know, based a lot of the right-wing blowhards I know or have encountered while blogging, I'm not sure it was any less effective than talking to them could be. I hate to give in completely to the stereotype, but damn! it's hard not to sometimes.

On the actual issue, other than Eric Rudolph (who isn't exclusively about abortion), I notice you give short shrift to abortion-related terrorism. I escort occasionally and am on my local Planned Parenthood's security mailing list; I hear a *lot* about right-wing violence, from minor to extreme, directed at abortion clinics. And that's all from the right.

[bryant]

Oh, Kennedy's a liberal. That's the scary thing. He's liberal, he dislikes Bush, and he completely buys into the stereotype of liberals as laid back NPR lovers.

And I mean, he lives in Boston. If ever there was a city for blue collar liberals, Boston is it. But no... says something depressing about self-image, I think.

Re: abortion-related terrorism -- yes. Tons and tons. Paul Hill, Stephen Jordi, James Kopp, and the list goes on. I think there are also fairly clear connections between the anti-abortion terrorist groups and the right wing militias -- Rudolph is one of them, and John Burt is another.

These groups are slowly merging, and that's a big big part of the problem.

[gentlyepigrams]

Yeah, the links between the Roy Moore theocrat types and the anti-choice crowd are pretty strong. They and their militia buddies make the so-called VWRC look downright friendly.

And, of course, terrorism continues to be a problem for the left!