Against political violence

This week we read "The Black Gate Opens."  Gandalf, Aragorn and nearly everyone else rides to the gates of Mordor to challenge Sauron.  They do this not to win but to divert his attention from Frodo, whom they merely must hope remains alive.  They know they will never defeat Sauron in a battle of arms; this battle is only a tactic to distract him.

Even if they win Sauron will eventually send another wave of minions, and another and another. It is fortunate the Ring is destroyed during the battle, interrupting it. Had Frodo and Sam been delayed a day, or even another hour, they would have prevailed at a much higher cost.

Last week former President Trump survived an assassination attempt.  It seems to have been a close thing - an unsteady hand, unexpected gust of wind, or his own sudden movement saved his life.  Nonetheless, one innocent person was killed and two more were injured.  The shooter was also killed.

Political violence is bad.  We should all oppose it.  Saying this is a false-flag operation, or a plot by his political opponents, or bemoaning that we were this close to being rid of this unique threat to our Republic only fuels the fire.  Political violence is bad and a society that rejects it is better off.  Not only morally, but in material safety.  A Democracy of the Survivors presents very perverse incentives.  Further, as we have seen, shooters and weapons aren't perfect.  If we have more assassination attempts we'll also have more innocent deaths.

President Trump is a unique threat to our Republic, and we'd be better off if he weren't running.  That doesn't justify killing him.  The means and the ends must each be justified.  Murder isn't justifiable.

What stuck with me reading this chapter was the image of this huge melee, all so Frodo can have an opportunity to destroy the Ring.  That's what matters.  The battle is just a tactic.

Killing a political opponent is also a tactic towards political outcomes, but it will never get us what we want.  Whether you hit or miss you have now legitimized your opponent to break the rules to reach whatever goal of theirs was enraging you.  And if you do kill them there's always going to be someone to take their place.  What then?  Do we kill our way through our political opponents until the rest surrender?  These people have principles just like we do - would we be so easily cowed?  Would we not organize and strike back?

Stated like this I think it's clear it is delusional thinking to believe assassinations will lead to the political outcome we want.  Assuming Trump had died I think we can all agree that wouldn't have been the end of it. MAGA would strike back. I'm reminded of this quote, from Fellowship of the Ring.

[Sam said to Galadriel] 'I wish you'd take his Ring.  You'd put things
to rights... You'd make some folk pay for their dirty work.'

'I would,' she said. 'That is how it would begin.
But it would not stop with that, alas!'

It is easy to begin political violence - maybe even righteously!  But reprisals would come for those who took their lives; or at least those who were blamed; or at least those who could be acted against.  And then counter-counter-reprisals, etc.  How would it stop?  Who would be the person to see someone on their side killed and say "That's enough, it stops now - no more reprisals."  Tolerance is a big ask!

It's worth recalling tolerance did not come from high-minded thinkers who then persuaded society to live and let live.  Tolerance, in the Western tradition, came out of centuries of religious wars in Europe which pitted Catholics against Protestants.  Each side thought God wanted the other side wiped out, but that was proving impossible to do.  Tolerance arose because these 'forever wars' of the day were making life unbearable for everyone.  No particular person said "That's enough, it stops now."  Society did.

A sustained presence of violence, of any kind, undermines society's ability to function.  And society would recognize, above the incentives of individuals and political tribes, that it has to stop.  And sometimes it stops with democracy (Post-bellum America) and sometimes it stops with fascism (NAZIs, Soviets, Taliban).  Once you enter the abyss of societal dysfunction it's hard to predict the outcome.

This answers another issue I've been wrestling with - the battle does not end because Frodo destroys the Ring.  It ends because (or perhaps merely after) Frodo betrays the Quest and is attacked by Gollum who takes the Ring but then falls into the Crack of Doom.  The world is saved, of all things, by Gollum's greed!  A Eucatastrophe: An event we cannot plan for and should not hope for.  Indeed, who could have predicted the religious wars of the 1600s would have resulted in greater religious tolerance?

It's easier to predict the outcome of an election you lose: More elections.  Election cycles necessarily are followed by future election cycles - and will at some point produce results your opponents will not like.  But you don't want them empowered to kill whoever you voted for.  Thus, you must lay aside that power.  Better yet everyone must agree that option is unavailable and, if ever used, swiftly punished.

Ethics means doing the harder thing.  For politics, that means accepting defeat as a possibility, making coalitions with those you don't totally agree with, and refusing to despair and catastrophize (which is what gives us permission to break the rules of civil society).  Committing, or even encouraging, political violence is to say "I will recognize the government's authority only when I like the outcome."  And if one person has that position, it motivates others to take it.  The only solution is for nobody to take that position, and for those that do to be ostracized and punished - before they act.

'I wish you'd take his Ring.  You'd put things to rights...
You'd make some folk pay for their dirty work.'
'I would,' [Galadriel] said. 'That is how it would begin.

But it would not stop with that, alas!'

Let's say Trump somehow cancels elections in 2028, or runs a third term and wins.  He'll be 82.  Maybe he lives to be 100, and remains lucid throughout.  So worst case scenario he's in charge until 2046.  That's bad, but I don't believe we'd completely end as a republic.  The NAZIs ruled Germany for 12 terrible years, and then Germany was split for almost 45 years, but Germany reunited and has returned to being a democratic country.  Italy was ruled by Mussolini for 21 years!  Democracies, once they fall to fascism, are not stuck down there.

Picture this:  America has the same president for more than 10 years in a row, leading until he dies in office.  He imprisons a hundred thousand Americans based on their race, denies immigrants wishing to enter the country and tries to pack the Supreme Court when they rule against him.

The administration you're picturing has already happened - FDR was elected for four terms and did all of those things.  Yet we survived as a republic.

I need more evidence that this time will be different, and cannot even comprehend the evidence I would need to support political violence against Trump.  Because it would not stop with that, alas!

This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed 0% to this post's final version.