I’ve never even visited, much less read anything, in the Establishment Republican NeverTrump website The Dispatch before, but much to my surprise I came across an article worth quoting. It’s on the subject of who or what is to blame for the shooting of Donald Trump July 13th in Pennsylvania. It begins with this thought: “‘If criticism is the moral equivalent of incitement, we have no free speech.’” It then goes on [Emphasis added.]:

“On the question of blame, many online pundits, and some elected Republicans, immediately blamed the left for calling Trump a threat to democracy…[including] J.D. Vance… ‘That rhetoric led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination.’

Biden didn’t call for violence, but he did say Trump is a threat to democracy …If Biden’s words are to blame for the assassination attempt, then I welcome Vance’s recognition that Donald Trump is to blame for January 6 after all. Trump didn’t call for violence, but he did tell his followers that democracy was on the line. 

You can see the clear problem, I hope. Blaming words for the violence that follows sets a bad precedent. This would become an all-encompassing tool of censorship. If any criticism is the moral equivalent of incitement, we have no free speech. We’re obligated to self-censor; we sacrifice speech to eliminate even the smallest possibility that violence might follow from the extremists and the unstable among us.”

Lefties are pros at calling us “haters” and “inciters” simply for noticing things.  They pull threads we never, ever mean to pull. Like, for instance, any criticism of George Soros is instantly met with accusations of anti-Semitism. Noooo… we just notice he spends lots of money doing lots of things extremely destructive to civil society.  That he happens to be nominally Jewish is of no import whatsoever.  He could worship trees. He could believe the answers to life are found at the bottom of a tea cup.  It doesn’t matter.

If we observe that Joy Reid’s insane ranting make her sound like an unhinged nut, we are instantly met with accusations of racism.  Noooo… it’s just that her insane ranting make her sound like an unhinged nut.  That she has black skin is ancillary, not even secondary.  It is of no import whatsoever.  She could be orange with purple polka dots. Then you’d have to accuse us of being orange-with-purple-polka-dot-people haters.  It simply doesn’t matter.  Her substance, the substance of what she deliberately says while miked up and in front of a camera, is what matters.  Those are choices.  Choices she makes to reveal herself.  In the same way stroking checks reveals who George Soros is.  They are choices.

The rubber hits the road when you put your money or your face/brand behind something.  These things matter.  Race or religion, immutables, do not.

Now, of course Trump isn’t a Hitler or a Nazi or a Stalin or any of the other ridiculous names the Left has given him.  And we don’t reflexively call those who call him those things “anti-Scottish” or “anti-German” because they do it. (Trump is the son of Scottish and German immigrants.). “Identity” politics is a “them” thing not an “us” thing.

In fact, I’d wager, you can’t imagine anyone you know, even second or third hand, actually picking up a weapon and deliberately, with malice-aforethought, shooting someone -- anyone -- never mind someone high profile.

Right?

Let them, the name-callers, speak.  Let them call anyone they want Hitler.  You know why?  Because for everyone calling him Hitler, there’s at least one other person speaking about Trump rationally. At least one.  And there’s absolutely no reason to presume Crooks was deaf to them, the rational ones. There is no evidence whatsoever that this kid had Joy Reid on loop on earbuds pressed into his ear canal 24/7.  He did not spend all day everyday listening to MSNBC clips until his ears bled (pardon the grim pun).  And even if he did, that would be a sign of mental illness (I’m only half-joking) not a sign that “rhetoric” needed to be censored.

He was one kid.  One.  One of who knows how many who do listen to “violent rhetoric” all day long and don’t choose to shoot a president.  For every one of him, there are quite literally millions like him, who, for whatever reason, dislike Trump. Maybe even intensely. And choose not to shoot him.

We can’t make the exception the rule. We simply can’t. That’s what progressives do, not conservatives. Limiting speech is never, ever the way.  Ever.  You are always the bad guy if you are on the side of limiting speech because it always requires force. There’s no way to keep ideas down without it.  None.  It’s a prelude to force when you insist on drawing a direct line between what someone says on television and a viewer squeezing a trigger.  There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this young man heard something that then led directly to his actions last weekend.  It’s safe to say that if you actually find yourself on a rooftop aiming a high-powered weapon at a president, you’re mentally ill, yes?  Because who would do that other than someone gravely, mentally ill?

So back to the rhetoric question:  what do we do?  Limit our speech so that some nut doesn’t get, well, literally triggered?  How?  How exactly would you do that?  By what mechanism do you enforce this civility?  And since when can civility be forced?  Force itself is an uncivil act so consider the irony in forcing someone to be civil.

There are a thousand other safeguards which keep people from carrying rifles onto rooftops: parents, friends, a trusted relative, a clergyman, a teacher, any number of people who intervene when someone starts to show signs of instability.  Just because this kid slipped through the cracks does not mean we call down the thought police.  Thought police, again, is what liberals do, not us.

You really don’t want to play language games with the left.  They’re the masters at it and it’s just not worth it; the old adage comes to mind: don’t get down with the pigs to play in the slop because the pigs like it and you’ll just come out smelly. 

Image: AT via Magic Studio