Poll on political assassination... bad news

[Pb]

This is a very disturbing poll.  Large minorities of younger people (<50 years) are supportive of the concept of “assassinating a politician who is harming our country or democracy"…especially younger Democratic men…. and younger Republican women for some reason.

The contrast with older people (50+) is extreme.  Older men are the least supportive of assassinations, even less than older women.

What do you all think?


https://twitter.com/VinceCoglianese/status/1534583098519715843

[Angel Eyes]

The party of John Wilkes Booth showing its true colors?

[dogmush]

I think it's a symptom of folks, and especially the media, having to make everything into an extreme to get the clicks and money from an increasingly numb to nuance society.

The basis of the question isn't unthinkable.  Certainly there are leaders, even elected ones, that should have been assassinated for the good of the world early in their careers.  Violence can be an effective and moral tool against tyranny and injustice.

The problem comes when you start thinking every difference of political opinion makes the other guy Hitler or Stalin.  Then it get's harder to make rational choices about when politcal violence is actually called for.

I look at the historical records of Stalin's purges, or Pol Pot's killing fields, and I wonder how folks compare that to disagreements about health insurance, inflation, or yes, even which week an abortion should be allowed.  People have no perspective anymore.  I'm not even sure I do.

So the real question in my mind is not whether or not assassination is ever OK, but when it becomes needed.

[cordex]

dogmush is exactly right.

That said, I think the phrasing of the question "harming our country or democracy" is a bit tame to bring on the assassination.  There isn't a President that I can recall that didn't meet that definition to some extent or another.  Yeah, even your favorite whoever that might be.  You'd go through a lot of bodies before you'd find any politician who didn't.

[Northwoods]

So the real question in my mind is not whether or not assassination is ever OK, but when it becomes needed.

The problem with that is by the time there’s broad consensus for such a remedy it’s far to late.

[AZRedhawk44]

Hell, the only politicians that shouldn't be assassinated are the ones that ARE harming democracy.  Democracy is a pile of rubbish, worth every bit as much as the vote of the least educated and most irrational individual in the electorate.

Empowering democracy just makes those orange stripes that much more dangerous.

[Pb]

A hypothetical Pol Pot, sure...

BUT

There are no politicians in American history that I think should be assassinated; there are countless ones that have and continue to harm our country.

[Pb]

The party of John Wilkes Booth showing its true colors?

The difference between the parties is not large.

[MechAg94]

The problem with that is by the time there’s broad consensus for such a remedy it’s far to late.

If there is a consensus, then why is the politicians still in office?  Perhaps there is not a consensus outside their little internet bubble. 


If they really want to see more people think it is a good idea, keep cheating on elections.  When the majority of people no longer believe their vote counts for anything, their perspective might change.

[Andiron]

Hell, the only politicians that shouldn't be assassinated are the ones that ARE harming democracy.  Democracy is a pile of rubbish, worth every bit as much as the vote of the least educated and most irrational individual in the electorate.

Empowering democracy just makes those orange stripes that much more dangerous.

Yeah not crazy about mob rule myself.

[Andiron]

I think it was Correia that characterized use of violence as a switch for conservatives, vs a dial for marxists.  Sounds like those idiots are intent on ditching the dial and flipping the switch.

[dogmush]

A hypothetical Pol Pot, sure...

BUT

There are no politicians in American history that I think should be assassinated; there are countless ones that have and continue to harm our country.

Hypothetically, off the top of my head: I'm sure there were a couple during reconstruction that were drafting the Jim Crow laws, whomever came up with the idea to put Americans in camps during WWII, the architects of the early Indian Reservation system.  I could come up with others.

[griz]

So this large group of young people who approve of assassination as a viable method of political change, I wonder if it's the same people who don't think you should be allowed to have a gun?

That aspect aside, I doubt the poll phrased it in quite the same way as the results are presented.  I find it hard to believe that roughly 40 percent of young people approve of assassination in general.

[HankB]

Hypothetically, off the top of my head: I'm sure there were a couple during reconstruction that were drafting the Jim Crow laws, whomever came up with the idea to put Americans in camps during WWII, the architects of the early Indian Reservation system.  I could come up with others.

How about the guy who gave the order to use goons with guns as tax collectors during the Whiskey Rebellion? (Extra credit if you can name him without google's help . . .    )

Seriously, this is still the USA, not some lousy banana republic. Political assassination ought NEVER become a mechanism for change as long as we're still a Constitutional Republic.

Funny how it's the lefties who seem to be comfortable with the idea . . .

[cordex]

Hell, the only politicians that shouldn't be assassinated are the ones that ARE harming democracy.  Democracy is a pile of rubbish, worth every bit as much as the vote of the least educated and most irrational individual in the electorate.

Empowering democracy just makes those orange stripes that much more dangerous.

As even the most pedantic among us know, most people colloquially use that term to refer to a system that grants electoral selection of a subset of decision makers by the people. Vanishingly few intend it to literally mean every person votes for every single issue. 

[Perd Hapley]

As even the most pedantic among us know, most people colloquially use that term to refer to a system that grants electoral selection of a subset of decision makers by the people. Vanishingly few intend it to literally mean every person votes for every single issue.

Yeah, but you get extra 'Murica points for ranting about republics vs democracies every time there's a casual mention of "democracy."

[bedlamite]

Who is running the pool for the start date on civil war 2: electric boogaloo

[Jim147]

Who is running the pool for the start date on civil war 2: electric boogaloo

The ones in the Hawaiian shirts.

[dogmush]

Seriously, this is still the USA, not some lousy banana republic. Political assassination ought NEVER become a mechanism for change as long as we're still a Constitutional Republic.

So as long as the government  is still restrained by a strong Constitution, and doesn't violate the rights of it's citizens, and supreme power is held by the people, and exercised through their representatives that are picked in fair and open elections,  no one need be shot.

Can't argue with that.....

[Northwoods]

So as long as the government  is still restrained by a strong Constitution, and doesn't violate the rights of it's citizens, and supreme power is held by the people, and exercised through their representatives that are picked in fair and open elections,  no one need be shot.

Can't argue with that.....

Ummmm…. About that list …

[WLJ]

Ummmm…. About that list …

Yeah, beat me to it.

[AZRedhawk44]

As even the most pedantic among us know, most people colloquially use that term to refer to a system that grants electoral selection of a subset of decision makers by the people. Vanishingly few intend it to literally mean every person votes for every single issue.

A considerably large minority, which is fast approaching a majority, use it canonically with the intent of subverting Republic style representation and absolute rights, in favor of mob rule.  Precision in language carries precision in political theory, philosophy, or faith.

"Words offer the means to meaning; and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth."

[grampster]

The primary things that need to be done is 3 fold.  1.  We need an immigration policy that has a way of vetting immigrants.
2.  Election counting has to be secured in some fashion with only American citizens allowed to vote.  3.  Term limits for congress critters and federal judges including SCOTUS and a *$250.00 maximum year contribution to political candidates from ANY and EVERY source including the candidate themselves.  (*that makes them more accountable to regular citizens rather than billionaires, millionaires and money laundering campaign organizations.)

[Boomhauer]

The US government is literally using 1984 as an instruction manual, that violence switch is gonna get flipped.

We saw in 2020 that the ballot box doesn’t matter anymore, we have seen for many years that the jury box is heavily stacked against you, and the soap box is under constant, open attack and has been for several years now.

APAB.

[cordex]

A considerably large minority, which is fast approaching a majority, use it canonically with the intent of subverting Republic style representation and absolute rights, in favor of mob rule. 

A very small group may use it that way, but most people who use the term are simply referring to participation in the electoral process and the accountability of elected politicians to the people.

Precision in language carries precision in political theory, philosophy, or faith.

With respect, thinking back to some discussions here on APS, I would note that it is possible to be precisely wrong.