What makes the event most noteworthy is that one crazy person killed one and wounded 19 others. Throwing water bottles is not good, but not on the same scale. The killer happened to have extreme right-wing affiliations, but the vast majority of those with extreme right-wing affiliations who were there did not try to kill people. This appears to be an act of terrorism in the same way that the San Bernardino shooting was - a crazy person, motivated by ideology and his own inner demons, committing an evil action.
Our President's reaction, on the other hand, is harder to defend (unless you go into fantasy world where any bad thing about the right is the product of a vast conspiracy to falsify everything we see just to score points) “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides. On many sides.”
What struck most Americans was not that he was chastising both sides for throwing bottles, but that he looked at an act of terrorism and blamed the injured and the dead as much as the terrorist. And that should not be a surprise, as on the campaign trail he repeatedly spread the libel that he personally saw thousands of American Muslims celebrating on 9/11 (spoiler alert: the only role American Muslims had in the events of 9/11 were as victims of terrorism).
I understand that the murder became the big story. But I'm not sure if it really is. I'm trying to look at the big picture instead of looking at a single incident. I'm looking at the forest, not the trees. And what I see is that violence is becoming more acceptable among more and more of the population, particularly against Nazis and White Nationalist, and generally against Republicans. I don't think I've seen anybody defend the murder. Everybody seems to believe he should be imprisoned or put to death. This is healthy and right. But the acceptance of violence in response to speech I feel erodes the Constitutional fabric. It erodes the rule of law, and the foundation that we have built that the way we work things out amongst ourselves in the USA is through speech and politics, not violence.
To me, the forest is the growing trend over the last 15 or so years that politics is war. The opposition is the enemy, not our countrymen and women. The enemy must be defeated by any means possible. The enemy is evil. Trump is good because "he fights". It's more important to win elections than it is to maintain good order and enable compromise. This trend is growing and growing and now we have the perfect enemy. Nazis and White Nationalists. Nobody likes them. The advocacy and incitement to violence against the Nazis and White Nationalists is, IMHO, the most dangerous thing to our country. The incitement to violence against Republicans and Democrats in general is much smaller, but the line will blur. The Republican Party as a whole is already connected to Facism and Nationalism due to the election of Donald Trump. It's a small jump to say that Republicans are Nazis or Nazi sympathizers. Next thing you know we have snipers and mass assassinations.
In conjunction with this advocacy of violence, there is the erosion of the 1st Amendment, the amendment that is the bedrock for allowing us and emphasizing that in our country we solve things through speech and politics rather than violence and warfare. We have already heard the arguments that hate speech is not free speech, hence the Nazis and White Nationalists don't have the right to have their marches and protests. They say it's okay to punch Nazis, it's the American Way. Whether or not hate speech is free speech, the battle over it should be fought in courts and through more speech, not through violence.
I understand that President Trump's response and condemnation of Nazism and Fascism was mealy mouthed, and took forever to draw out. I understand the criticism. But I also have not heard very many leading Democrats and Progressives come out against political violence and for freedom of speech for the Nazis and White Nationalists. Since some are now using terrorism to label any political violence, could not violence against Nazis and White Nationalists for exercising their free speech be labeled as terrorism? Is anti-fa not a terrorist organization, because it denies that Nazis and White Nationalists have the right to free speech in the US? It's possible that many Democrats and Progressives are condemning political violence. I'm not following that close. Mainly I'm distracted by all the advocacy and incitement to violence. I know there were a great deal of peaceful anti-protestors that had come to Charlottesville. They were mainly church groups, multi-racial, and advocated peace and brotherhood. Their message was drowned out, and that's another tragedy.
Since we are on the subject of the definition of Terrorism, I'm still one of those who uses the word very narrowly, and I'm not sure that the term is correctly used in the case of the Charger Murder. Since you bring up San Bernadino, you will recall that I did not favor it's use in that case either. I argued against it. I understand that I am in the very small minority now, but I still believe that we are using the word too expansively.
It's not simply the definition, but what the word and labeling leads to. Terrorism is the preview of the FBI. Terrorism is a national threat, a national risk. As soon as we label something as Terrorism, it means it is a national risk. It's possible that the KKK and their ilk are terrorist organizations. They have been in the past, when they actively planned and executed and advocated violence against others. But in this particular case, I'm unsure if the violence was pre-mediated, planned, or organized. I have no problem with the DOJ getting involved per say, but if they do not find organizational and planning involved, their only role then was to rule it out as Terrorism. Honestly, the investigation was probably 99% completed by the VSP. That doesn't mean that it wasn't terrorism. But there does not appear to me to be a national threat of violence by the KKK as of yet. If they can tie any kind of planning or general advocacy of violence to the KKK, then by all means, they are all terrorists and I look forward to the feds tearing them apart.
There needs to be a distinction between organizations like AQ, and the KKK in the 60s, and lone wolf nutjob attackers. The threat posed by large organizations, and the evil they represent, is different. The IRA needs a different national response than nutjobs who decide to shoot up churches or movie theaters one day. They're both motivated by hate. They are both evil. But one poses a different kind of danger, and requires a different kind of response.
