Daly: The Political Violence Blame Game

If we're going to do this, let's at least set some rules.

On Tuesday, Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray effectively confirmed (from texts and other evidence) what a lot of political observers had strongly suspected from the moment Charlie Kirk was assassinated: his murderer was a leftist who killed Kirk because of his political views.

Believe it or not, there had been an aggressive effort by some on the left to cast the shooter as a Trump supporter or groyper (which I recently learned means an alt-right, white-nationalist). But unsurprisingly, that was just wishful thinking. The killer’s ideological leanings are now clear, and a hot debate Bernie Goldberg and I touched on in this week’s No BS Zone is boiling over: Who’s more dangerous — the right-wing or the left-wing?

According to each side, the answer is — you guessed it — the other side. And wouldn’t you know it, it’s “not even close.”

I was prepared to talk more about this topic during our conversation, but Bernie and I got a little sidetracked. With new testimony now logged, however, it seems like a good time to revisit it. I want to start off with the reactions of a couple of conservative writers I admire.

“This was a political murder,” wrote National Review’s Charles Cooke. “Usually, that’s not the case. Usually, whether nominally on the left or the right, the perpetrator is crazy and incoherent, and his views are secondary to that. But this one was not. Ignoring that won’t make it go away.”

The New York Times’ David French wrote, “The evidence grows that this was a political assassination and not merely a manifestation of mental illness (like, say, the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan). It does no one any good to deny or minimize this evidence.”

Both men touched on important points that I’ve long factored into my own view of political violence… and when it should (and shouldn’t) be labeled as “right-wing” or “left-wing.”

The inclination of a lot of people, when making this determination, is to look only at the victim or intended victim. If that person is on their team, tada… the other side is to blame. If the person is on the other team, well… things aren’t so clear.

I think a much better approach is to look at what drove the perpetrator. As Cooke points out, most people who commit such violence aren’t primarily motivated by politics or ideology. French offered a textbook example of this: Ronald Reagan’s would-be assassin, John Hinckley Jr.

Hinckley didn’t exactly view Reagan as a political or ideological enemy. He instead suffered from serious mental illness, and believed that by shooting the president of the United States, he’d earn the attention and affection of Hollywood actress Jodie Foster. Pretty much everyone agrees that while Reagan was a right-wing icon, the attempt on his life was not an act of left-wing violence.

Again, Hinckley is the rule… not the exception. Others I would include in the same category are the man who shot Gabby Giffords, the man who smashed a hammer into Paul Pelosi’s skull, and Donald Trump’s first would-be assassin. (Heck, his second may even belong there). Yet, in each of these more recent occurrences, many Americans (perhaps millions) instinctively view the assailant as a product or ally of the victim’s political opposition.

Is that fair? I don’t think so.

Also, when considering political violence as a whole, I think equal weight should be given to the failed attempts to hurt or kill people. Instances of people being spared from injury or death, because of a twist of fate (or some other intervention), should be taken just as seriously as if it had happened. Examples of this would include the man who intended to kill Justice Kavanaugh, the guy who set fire to Josh Shapiro’s house, the aforementioned individual who broke into Nancy Pelosi’s home (who planned to torture and kill her, but had to settle for her husband), those who plotted to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer, and Trump’s aspiring golf-course assassin.

For people on either team, who truly feel that it’s imperative to get to the bottom of which “side” has a worse track record of political violence, shouldn’t there at least be a consistent standard for perpetrators, from which to make that determination? I think I’ve come up with a pretty reasonable one.

In my view, “right-wing” or “left-wing” political violence is defined by a politically or ideologically motivated individual, who either:

• injures or kills (or tries to injure or kill) a person or people they consider a political or ideological enemy

• destroys property (or tries to destroy property) in the name of a political or ideological cause

Does that sound good and fair? If so… have at it!

And for those playing this game: As you work on your lists, with your crooked reasoning and shameful omissions, I’ll reserve my respect for those who unquestioningly recognize and condemn all acts of political violence. Because for those of us whose egos and biases aren’t at stake, the precise breakdown has little substantive meaning. Both sides have a problem, and the longer people deny that, and excuse or dismiss the violent acts of their political or ideological cohorts, the worse off our country will be.