The issue, rather, is what picture of “political violence” this messaging serves: To say that “political violence” has “no place” in a society organized by political violence at home and abroad is to acquiesce to the normalization of that violence, so long as it is state and capitalist monopolized.
As author Ben Ehrenreich noted on X, “There is no place for political violence against rich, white men. It is antithetical to everything America stands for.”
I mean I don’t exactly expect democratic politicians to advocate for political assassinations as you know, they are politicians, so of course as soon as one of their own comes under attack even if they’re on the other side of politics they’re gonna denounce it cause they don’t want to be assassinated.
I read this article as asking politicians to go the other direction with this logic and extend this abhorrence of violence they have when it comes their fellow political leaders to homeless people, migrants, civilians in war zones, etc.
Yeah I definitely agree, I was more just replying to the quote from the article about them calling for civility. I don’t really imagine they would call for anything else after something like this as it’s violence directed at people in similar positions of power to them.
“democratic politicians”, “person who incited attack on the capitol because he lost the election” and “one of us” can’t be in the same sentence.
it is imho simply the case that they can’t publicly say “oh fuck, so close, why did that moron miss?”
No I think even in private they don’t want Trump assassinated unless theyre not thinking this through. Cause if assassinations of politicians become more normalized or are shown as successful or called for by certain sides then that just makes the jobs of politicians on both sides more dangerous. Even if they’d be happy if he dropped dead him getting killed in an assassination just makes the target on them bigger as well as people would see they can work as a way to get rid of politicians they don’t like.