In the grand theater of American politics, the saga of assigning blame for political violence takes center stage. On one side, we have a group that seemingly wants to solve disagreements with peace yet paradoxically insurgent fervor. On the other, there’s the oft-blamed conservative crowd that’s frequently dubbed as the villain of the narrative. So, who’s at fault? Or perhaps the better question is, why is everyone arming themselves with the rhetorical equivalent of sticks and stones?
It seems that a recent so-called “Come Together” event at a prestigious institution of higher learning turned into a spectacle. The goal was to explore different opinions on the topic of political violence. Yet, in an ironic twist, the left-leaning students voiced their views with euphemistic ‘quiet’ while their conservative counterparts were sent running as if extras in an old monster movie. The student organization behind this enlightening meeting, with its subtly ominous name, left no ambiguity about its approach to ending fascism—by any means necessary. Because violence, they explained in a logic-defying loop, is the antidote to violence. Make of that what you will.
Even the New York Times couldn’t resist dipping its toes in this whirlpool of contradictions, courtesy of their editorial on defining violence. Their notion is that violence is rather like fine art or wine—it’s all about perspective, darling. An unfortunate death during an arrest isn’t violence, but a conservative uttering an unpopular opinion? Well, let’s just say that’s enough to tip the violence scale right off the charts. This is the kind of philosophical reevaluation that might lead one to dub a natural disaster as “an impromptu pool party.”
Meanwhile, across town—or possibly in a well-secured bunker—the conservative media folks are feeling the love too, with polite notes attached to flaming projectiles from groups with equally genteel names. Apparently, being a dissenter these days means you’re caught in a perpetual game of dodgeball, where your opponents are armed with not balls but flaming accusations of hate and bigotry.
Let us also pause to appreciate the widespread cultural phenomenon wherein disagreeing while breathing out loud is considered a capital offense, especially in high-brow circles. It’s a well-rehearsed act where the grand finale often involves a high-profile comedian, a talk show, and a liberal pinch of generalized declarations against those dastardly conservatives. The unexpected plot twist is, of course, the silence-that-is-violence doctrine, completing this circular narrative with dramatic flair.
And so the debate spins on, leaving observers wondering if reasoned discourse has gone the way of the dodo. It’s a farce where everyone’s at fault, and somehow, no one is. As the curtain drops for now, expect fans of this ongoing political dramedy to stay tuned for the next act, where the stakes involve but are not limited to: peaceful disagreements, creative nomenclature, and the underlying question—who exactly needs to “come together” here?
