Democrats are slowly, but surely, building a permission structure for progressive activists to kill those they determine are bad. From the rise of antisemitism to, now, the murder of an insurance CEO, few Democrats seem capable of condemning violence without adding a "but."
To their credit, Gov. Josh Shapiro and Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania have condemned both without buts. Unfortunately, when President Joe Biden condemns antisemitism in the United States, he cannot help himself but muddy the water with equal condemnations of Islamophobia. No one is chasing Muslim students off college campuses. Progressive activists are turning violent, and too few Democratic leaders want to condemn the violence without adding caveats.
Luigi Mangione's alleged murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson has also been met with lots of "buts." Sen. Elizabeth Warren could not help but justify Thompson's murder on television with MSNBC's Joy Reid: "Violence is never the answer. This guy gets a trial who's allegedly killed the CEO of UnitedHealth, but you can only push people so far, and then they start to take matters into their own hands."
"You can only push people so far," she reasoned. Warren is a supporter of Obamacare, the present health care system in the United States that people hate. In fact, Americans' hatred of health care in this country has grown since passage of the legislation Warren supports. God forbid people connect the dots and decide Democrats are the ones who pushed people too far by breaking the health care system.
The caveats and excuses and buts complicate the situation. If killing Brian Thompson can be explained away as Thompson and his company pushing people so far, who is next? The oil company executives who the left says are evil for climate change? What about the abortion doctors who kill children or the trans-affirming doctors who do sex change operations?
We cannot give ourselves the permission structure or power to make exceptions to the very basic rule that killing another human is wrong. Unfortunately, Democrats do not seem capable of saying that without adding a but or an excuse.
In 1970, there were 20 bombings a week in California orchestrated by progressive activists. In 1971, the Weather Underground bombed the United States Capitol. In 1972, the Weather Underground bombed the Pentagon. In 1975, the Weather Underground bombed the State Department. The members plotted the assassination of a California State Senator in 1978.
According to a report prepared by the Department of Energy in 2001, "Leftist extremists were responsible for three-fourths of the officially designated acts of terrorism in America in the 1980s." The same report noted left-wing extremists tend to be younger and better educated than right-wing extremists and they tend to live in urban areas, thereby making high population centers more target-rich.
While there are instances of right-wing extremists in the United States engaging in violence, such as killing an abortion clinic doctor, Democrat politicians and Republican politicians uniformly condemn the violence without caveats, exceptions or buts. For that matter, pro-life activists are the loudest voices to condemn abortion doctor murders -- noting that it is antithetical to their core mission and beliefs.
But gun down an insurance executive or firebomb a synagogue and, should it be a progressive, few Democrats can resist adding a but to the end of their statement against violence. Over time, these caveats, carve outs and exceptions form the permission structure for more violence. "Violence is not the answer, but people can only be pushed so far" turns to "violence is not the answer, but something has to change," which morphs into "violence is not the answer, but it's understandable." That then moves to violence.
The left has called Donald Trump the second coming of Hitler and a threat to democracy. That provoked multiple assassination attempts, with one nearly successful. They now are bemoaning a CEO's murder while justifying the killing. Wanted posters have gone up in New York City with the pictures of other insurance CEOs' faces. One might suspect the people putting them up are the same who tore down the posters of kidnapped Israelis. What comes next? If oil companies are destroying the planet and the murder of an insurance CEO can be justified, surely someone will rid us of those other turbulent executives.