In the last couple of weeks, there has been a spate of posts and articles about whether the prosecution of Trump would be a good or bad thing, that typically come in two flavors:
- We don’t want current presidents prosecuting former political opponents.
- Trump’s followers will lose their shit (even more) and commit acts of violent terrorism.
Point number one can dealt with succinctly: Trump does not, can not, and never will regulate his own actions. He will do whatever he can get away with, and has done so for decades. There is no de facto deal to be had because he won’t honor it.
But the second point is telling: essentially, what this highlights, once again, is there is a perceived anger gap, as I explained regarding masking:
Imagine following counterfactual–AND BECAUSE THIS IS THE INTERNET WHICH MAKES PEOPLE STUPID, I AM NOT ADVOCATING THIS AT ALL:
A parent goes to a school board meeting and describes how their child is immunocompromised and needs to be protected. So far, that’s normal, and something we’ve seen plenty of video of and stories about. But then the parent adds, “And if my kid dies, I’m burying her and then coming for you.”
As the kids used to say, that escalated rapidly. Right now, all of the anger and the rage is on one side of the debate. Again, I’m not calling for violence, but telling office holders that if you don’t protect us, we’ll do everything we can to knock you out of office–because we’re trying to protect ourselves, our friends, and our families, and you have failed us–might shift the debate.
Our political discourse is admitting that, if the left, construed broadly loses, then they might protest and do non-violent things, but if the right loses, they will engage in political violence, which is to say terrorism. As Comrade Thers noted long ago:
Anyway, what we have here is a situation where a relatively small minority of Americans are claiming the right, ultimately backed up by their possession of weapons, to define the True Nature of American Freedom…
How this differs in any important philosophical regard from the position, of, say, the Provisional Irish Republican Army, I cannot say.
How it differs in any practical sense, well (McVeigh cough) who knows.
This is such a horrifying and critical subtext, yet The Discourse doesn’t mention it explicitly: much of the Republican Party is willing to use violence to gain political power. Seems like an important story, and one Republicans should be asked about.