I'm not much impressed with David French lately; his
criticism of Kyle Rittenhouse showed that he doesn't understand
citizenship, let alone
heroism. In his
latest piece, though, he raises a reasonable point: his sort did fairly well during the Cold War, in contests with the Soviets, and advanced the ball to some degree for a time during the Reagan era in other ways as well.
Sadly, he then departs into a criticism of toughness as a masculine virtue. Worse, he decides to fight it from the (friendly to Atlantic readers) ground of criticizing Donald Trump. This is a sideshow; the discussion that is worth having is whether or not the elite approach to conflict with the left is still capable of advancing any balls, or indeed if it has any to advance.
This is the meat of the argument, dispensing with that part that is personal criticism.
Indeed, the logic of the movement presses toward direct action. If you tell enough people that the future of the country is at stake, that their political opponents have corrupted democracy, and that only the truly tough have what it takes to save the nation, then speeches about unmanly ideologies will never be enough. Trolling on Twitter will, ironically, come to look like a hollow remedy, itself a form of weakness.
Thus we see the increased prevalence of open-carried AR-15s at public protests, the increased number of unlawful threats hurled at political opponents, and outbreaks of actual political violence, including the large-scale violence of January 6.
One of the most dangerous developments in our contentious times has been a growth in radical ideologies bolstered by radical intellectuals who often treat decency and even peace as impediments to justice. The riots that ripped through American cities were inexcusable expressions of political fury (and sometimes pure nihilism) that were too often rationalized, excused, and sometimes even celebrated. The author and academic Freddie deBoer has compiled a depressing list of articles, essays, and interviews in prominent publications excusing and justifying violent civil unrest.
The right-wing cult of toughness, in its distinctly Trumpist version, is no exception to this trend. When it is drained of limiting principles and tied to a man who would rather seek to upend our nation’s constitutional order than relinquish power, then the threat to the republic is plain. That threat will remain until the supposedly weak classical liberals on the left and the right do what they’ve always done at their best—rally in defense of liberty, the rule of law, and the American order itself.
I'm not sure what to make of the treatment here. David French doesn't like AR-15s; well, he's wrong there, but the open carry of them at protests is being done on both sides. These demonstrations look very different. In Richmond, VA in 2018
some 22,000 armed citizens showed up to protest a raft of gun rights infringements proposed by the governor. As no less than Reuters reports, "Despite fears that neo-Nazis or other extremists would piggyback on the Richmond rally to stoke unrest... [there was] just one arrest, a 21-year-old woman taken into custody for wearing a bandana over her face after twice being warned that masks were not allowed."
On the left, just a week ago we saw
masked men with guns openly intimidating a jury in Georgia -- not, as it turned out, that it was necessary. They would have gotten their way without such things. Yet here, too, French is missing the point. He wants to equate the January 6th riot with the whole history of riots across America, and the ongoing lawlessness. We already know that January 6th featured many Federal informants and agents, though, actively encouraging violent acts -- and a Capitol Police force of 2,000 who did not deploy adequate forces, and a National Guard that stood aside for reasons yet to be revealed.
Ultimately, the government ought to live in fear of what the citizens might do if it misbehaves. That's the only way to avoid governments that are ready to engage in democide and concentration camps. They should worry the whole time they are in power about what we might do if they cross the line. Then, perhaps, they might govern within the lines instead of well outside them.
Citizens still need to be accountable for how they protest, with arms or without. All the same, as the Declaration of Independence states, we ultimately have the right to do away with this or any government if it betrays its duty. It is wise and proper that this right is backed up by the means to make it real.
