When Luigi Mangione gunned down a health insurance CEO six months ago, he was hailed as a hunky folk hero fighting for the oppressed, but somehow violence directed at Democrats is beyond the pale.
I have a pretty simple rule: Political violence including political assassinations is bad, beyond the pale, something that should never happen under any circumstances and something that should never be condoned under any circumstances. In the United States of America at least, we resolve our disputes via open debate, elections, the rule of law, and the application of democratic norms. While the outcome of these democratic processes do not always yield the outcome I personally desire, the process itself keeps the peace, confers legitimacy, and over the long march of history, has generally produced positive results that combine ideas from all sides of the political spectrum. As such, when I first learned about the pre-planned attacks on Democrat lawmakers in Minnesota over the weekend, I was horrified. To me at least, it didn’t matter what the supposed motives were, what the manifesto that turned out not to have existed at all might have said, who the assassin was before he decided to pick up a gun, what led him to this point, or why. While these things might make for interesting trivia, history, backstory for his trial, etc., sane, rational people who believe in American democracy, do not impersonate police officers to assassinate politicians or other prominent figures. There is no reason, in my opinion, that could possibly justify such an action, only either insanity or evil, perhaps some combination of the two. To be sure, the assassin in question is almost certain to believe they have a reason, one that uniquely compels them to act. While we do not yet know why Vance Boelter, a rather unremarkable 57-year old with no apparent history of violence, was compelled to kill former Democratic House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, in their home early Saturday, then attempt to do the same to Senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, also in their home, history clearly shows that, rather frequently, assassins are just plain crazy. John Hinckley, Jr. attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981 because he was convinced it would impress Jodie Foster, then a young actress who he became infatuated about after seeing Taxi Driver in 1976. John Schrank attempted to assassinate former President Teddy Roosevelt, then a third-party presidential candidate, on October 14, 1912 because he believed another former President, William McKinley’s ghost, was commanding him to do so. While some may point to the apparent existence of a target list and other documents with potential political connections as evidence that Mr. Boelter is somehow more rational, I at least would suggest that compiling 70 some-odd names and multiple abortion clinics should best be seen as a madman scribbling on the walls of their padded cell. No “rational assassin” would waste their time casting a net so wide or leaving such a paper trail behind. Putting this another way, hit men for the mob don’t compile hit lists of every mobster and their respective hang outs in the entire state.
Sadly, many Democrats do not seem to agree with my basic rule. Before the facts were in, some began issuing statements claiming that our discourse had been poisoned by violent rhetoric emanating primarily from their opponents, of course. Though authorities haven’t shared a possible motive yet, the media immediately described it as an “escalation of political violence,” (The Associated Press), said we lived in a “a country riven by violence against politicians” (The Washington Post), that Minnesota had succumbed “to spread of political violence” (Reuters), and that political violence “came to Minnesota” but “didn’t start there” (The New York Times.) For his part, Minnesota Governor and former Vice Presidential Candidate Tim Walz claimed it was “an act of targeted political violence.” “This cannot be the norm. It cannot be the way that we deal with our political differences,” he added on Sunday almost immediately after demanding that people get meaner against MAGA. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar issued an email statement, saying much the same, “Let me be clear, this act of targeted political violence was an attack on everything we stand for as a democracy.” Others went further and directly blamed Republicans in general, President Donald Trump in particular. Robert A. Pape, professor of political science at the University of Chicago and a supposed expert on political violence, framed it this way. “America has had low levels of political violence, but in the last five years there has been a historical moment in political violence. We are a tinderbox of a country.” After describing similar trends in the 1920s and 1960s, when rapid social and economic changes also occurred, he decried the President in particular as a “symptom, as much as a cause.” “This is an era of violent populism,” he added. “And the behavior of Trump and other politicians are on top of other things.” Similarly, Matt Delleck, a professor at George Washington University claimed President Trump was “both a victim and an accelerant.” “It feels as if the extremists are in the saddle,” he said, “and the extremists are the ones driving our rhetoric and politics.” Jacob Ware, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations took a somewhat broader view, but still somehow managed to fault the President. After noting, “You’re seeing acts of violence from all different ideologies. It feels more random and chaotic and more frequent,” he went on to claim the Administration might be incompetent, “We’re at the point, after these six weeks, where we have to ask about how effectively the Trump administration is combating terrorism,” and the January 6th pardons might be to blame as a more immediate cause, “They sent a very strong message that violence, as long as you’re a Trump supporter, will be permitted and may be rewarded.” Senator Chris Murphy insisted, “The Minnesota assassin appears to be a hate-filled right winger. So can we stop walking on eggshells about MAGA’s legitimization of political violence? Yes, Republicans have also been the target of inexcusable violence, but this isn’t a ‘both sides’ issue.” Senator Jeff Merkley was perhaps the most pointed, telling CNN “Trump has really popped the lid off of the rhetoric and the sense of hate and violence and promoted this type of an environment. It’s profoundly disturbing for all of us.”
While condemnations of violence and perennial calls to reduce the extremity of our political rhetoric are not out of place or unwarranted, the entire exercise would be a lot more believable if progressives hadn’t chosen to champion another political assassin less than a year ago as a Robin Hood like spokesperson for the oppressed. Rather than demanding Americans tone down the political rhetoric after Luigi Mangione gunned down the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, Brian Thompson in broad daylight in New York City, many on the left made it clear they believed his actions were justified and some went even further, gushing over a cold blooded killer like high school freshman pining for the star quarterback. Politico covered the immediate reaction, “In the wake of the early morning killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York last week, social media lit up not with shock and horror, but something more akin to joy. ‘This needs to be the new norm,’ posted one X user, ‘EAT THE RICH.’ ‘My only question is did the CEO of United Healthcare die quickly or over several months waiting to find out if his insurance would cover his treatment for the fatal gunshot wound?’ posted another.” Even in the immediate aftermath, there was next to no “analysis” on whether decades of largely Democrat and progressive rhetoric demonizing the healthcare industry as a whole and demanding the government take over contributed to Mr. Mangione’s desire to kill a leading CEO. Instead, the idea that this particular assassination was somehow justified quickly began to spread. As The Nation put it, “Luigi Mangione Is America Whether We Like It or Not. While very few Americans would sincerely advocate killing insurance executives, tens of millions have likely joked that they want to. There’s a clear reason why.” “The fact that a masked mystery man turned undeniably hunky suspect has emerged as a sort of folk antihero has all to do with the depth of societal revulsion held for everything his target is understood to represent: the inexcusably callous structure of American healthcare financing, and all the suffering and humiliation it entails.” After haranguing the healthcare insurance industry, they concluded, “So, what does the public get in exchange for all of this misery? In a word, nothing. The appalling amount of resources and energy we put into maintaining the existence of health insurance is wasted on an industry with no social value whatsoever. You could eliminate every one of these corporations tomorrow and build a system without them that works better, for less money, and with less hassle. Other countries already have systems like this. Medicare for All is the only proposal on the table capable of delivering universal, continuous coverage for everyone, while also securing the efficiency and savings only possible through the elimination of private insurance. None of that means that murder is justified or useful. But anger can be. Some politicians, from Bernie Sanders, to Elizabeth Warren, to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have begun to make public statements ascribing the reaction to Brian Thompson’s murder to widespread fury over the health insurance industry. The next step is to harness it, and to build something new.”
Around the same time, Axios reported that “the internet cheered the UnitedHealth shooting suspect as a folk hero,” noting that “Even before police arrested Luigi Mangione in connection with the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, some on the internet were hailing him as a 21st-century Robin Hood” and selling “Merchandise, including sweatshirts, wine tumblers and hats emblazoned with [his] words.” They also reported on a poll of young voters between the age of 18 and 29 that found an incredible 41% said the killing was “acceptable,” almost double any other age bracket with the next highest, 30 to 39 coming in at 23% and no other topping 13%. Maximilian Meyer, writing for The New York Post, claimed that his Ivy league campus “sides with Luigi Mangione.” After citing the same poll, he wrote, but “here at Princeton, a poll of nearly 1,500 students on the Fizz social network revealed that 25% found Mangione’s action ‘completely justified,’ with another 22% saying Thompson’s death was ‘deserved.’” At least some Americans also put their money where their mouth was, raising funds for Mr. Mangione’s defense. As Reuters described it, “In the days since Luigi Mangione was charged with murder for gunning down a top health insurance executive, more than a thousand donations have poured into an online fundraiser for his legal defense, with messages supporting him and even celebrating the crime. In New York, ‘Wanted’ posters with the faces of CEOs have appeared on walls. Websites are selling Mangione merchandise, including hats with ‘CEO Hunter’ printed across a bullseye. And some social media users have swooned over his smile and six-pack abs.” As late as April, some in the media were still gushing. Former Washington Post tech reporter Taylor Lorenz claimed that many younger people believe Mr. Mangione is a “morally good man” and, as we all know, heroes like this are hard to find. “You’re gonna see women especially that feel like, ‘oh my God, here’s this man who’s a revolutionary, who’s famous, who’s handsome, who’s young, who’s smart, he’s a person that seems like this morally good man,’ which is hard to find.” There’s actually a play about him now, Luigi: The Musical, where not surprisingly some theater goers continue to swoon. Tom, who asked The Independent to use only his first name, claimed making a musical out of his story was a “fabulous criticism of the issues in society that lead people to commit violent acts, all things that bother me.” Mary Lukanuski noted, “Street assassinations are never a good development. That said, he is the avatar of very understandable rage at healthcare in the U.S.” Kyle Reiley stated far more flatly, “He was justified in his actions.”
Even setting aside that these and other individuals appear to think the average American is so dumb they cannot realize the difference in treatment between two political assassins barely six months a part, the disconnect reveals the reality that many on the left simply do not care who lives and dies, so long as the right people live and die in their view. Violence directed at Democrats is bad, must be condemned at every turn, and blamed on their opponents, but that directed at individuals or groups they disagree with is good at worst, justifiable at best. While I have made my position that all political violence is equally deplorable clear in this post, consider if only as a thought experiment, that the very same arguments made to justify the killing of a health insurance CEO could be levied against an abortion provider, who many believe are murdering innocent babies on a daily basis and perpetrating a moral atrocity that needs to be stopped. If we wouldn’t indulge their revenge fantasies – and to be clear, we should not – why would we indulge others? The obvious answer – and indeed the only morally correct answer – is that we should not and cannot, but sadly that’s not what progressives think or at least a non-insignificant portion of them. They believe they can allow violence they support to persist, and use that which they do not as a political weapon whenever it is convenient. While this isn’t a new political phenomenon by any means, the fact that they are willing to state it so plainly, that their causes are worth lives, is more than a little disturbing.
Confessions of a Conservative Atheist 