Richard Spencer Richard Spencer Punched Again

Over the by week, liberals on social media have taken on an unusual debate: Is it okay to punch white nationalist Richard Spencer in the face?

The discussion came shortly after Spencer was actually punched in the face on camera by a protester during Donald Trump's inauguration. Shortly before he was punched, Spencer denied that he was a neo-Nazi and said, "Yes, certain," when asked if he liked black people. Then a man approached Spencer off camera and attacked him.

The moment quickly spawned mixed reactions on social media, igniting a big debate nigh whether politically motivated violence confronting Spencer was okay: Are his white nationalist, racist views — which helped establish the self-described alt-right, a fringe far-correct move with racist, anti-immigrant, and anti-Semitic views — so pitiful and extreme that they justify violence? Or should norms confronting politically motivated violence stand, no matter the target, meaning this attack should be condemned?

That this is a conversation at all goes to evidence how extreme politics have gotten in recent years. The rise of Donald Trump — in which he shattered American norms, including with explicit calls for violence against protesters at his rallies ("I hope you lot I will pay for the legal fees") — has warped what people consider acceptable. And the rising prominence of an open up racist whom many consider a Nazi — and the movement he leads and named — is challenging decades of liberal views upholding free speech and peaceful public discourse above all. This is not normal.

To understand how we got to this debate in the first place, it'southward crucial to understand who Spencer is. For many people, Spencer's mere rise into the mainstream — to the betoken that he'due south being interviewed and written near by major media outlets — shows that something has gone amiss in American politics, given the nature of his racist views. And that has given mode to extreme opinions about how to deal with Spencer and the broader resurgence of white nationalists in the Trump era.

Who is Richard Spencer?

Linda Davidson / Washington Mail / Getty

Spencer is a white nationalist who in 2008 coined the name for the alt-correct. Although he has been writing about these issues for years, he but recently gained national fame due in big office to Trump. As Spencer put it to Mother Jones in a story published in October, Trump'south racist rhetoric on the campaign trail — calling immigrants criminals, saying Muslims should be banned from the United states of america, arguing a judge should recuse himself from a example due to his Mexican heritage — gave legitimacy to much of the alt-correct's racist messaging.

"I call back if Trump wins we could really legitimately say that he was associated directly with us, with the 'R' discussion [racist], all sorts of things," Spencer said. "People will have to recognize us."

This is at the cadre of what Spencer has been trying to practice for years: legitimize white nationalism, which pushes the idea that the US should be a land for white people. That's why Spencer has used vague, bland phrases — like "alt-right," "identitarian," and "National Policy Institute," his proper noun for his recollect tank — to add together credibility to his views. And while Spencer has received a lot of pushback (many media outlets brand it a point to annotation that he and the alt-correct are racists), the fact is that he at present regularly appears on mainstream media outlets like CNN and the New York Times — suggesting that he has succeeded in giving himself some sort of legitimacy in American politics.

A major point of contention for Spencer is whether he's a Nazi. In the aftermath of him getting punched in the face up on camera, a lot of people have described him as 1. But Spencer insists he is not a Nazi, a member of the Ku Klux Klan, or part of another hate group. He has argued that he's not a white supremacist but only has a sense of white pride.

It'southward hard to square those claims, nonetheless, with what Spencer has said in the past. He has argued that blackness and Latino people have lower average IQs than white people and are genetically predisposed to commit crimes — views that most all scientists reject. And at times Spencer has explicitly argued that he believes white people are superior.

"I retrieve there is something within the European soul that we haven't been able to measure yet and mayhap we never will," Spencer told Mother Jones, "and that is a Faustian drive or spirit — a drive to explore, a drive to dominate, a drive to live one's life dangerously … a drive to explore outer space and the universe. I recollect at that place is something within us that we possess and that just nosotros possess."

Still, in that location are substantial differences between Nazism and white nationalism. Nazism calls for the tearing extermination of races that the Nazis accounted inferior. White nationalism calls for the institution of a country exclusively for white people, fifty-fifty if that ways forcing people of other races to motion but not necessarily exist killed — what Spencer once called a "peaceful ethnic cleansing."

Of form, when you suggest ethnic cleansing in whatever form in America, y'all're probably going to be called a Nazi — and maybe even attract some bodily Nazis. At a National Policy Institute briefing after Election Twenty-four hour period, some members of the crowd gave a Nazi salute as Spencer shouted, "Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!"

Why some think violence is justified against dangerous views

Given Spencer'southward extreme views and mainstream success, a lot of people have argued that extreme action is necessary to counter his dangerous message. That'south at the crux of why so many people are seemingly okay with politically motivated violence against Spencer, like punching him in the face.

Since much of the argue is on social media and specially Twitter, much of the give-and-take has focused on memes and jokes.

But there is a serious element to this: At the very to the lowest degree, a lot of people seem totally unbothered at the thought of politically motivated attacks against people they think of every bit Nazis — a group that'southward and then extreme and evil from the perspective of everyday Americans that it merits extreme activity to fight. In this mode, that an explicitly racist person'due south safety is considered a not-concern sends a message nigh how unacceptable bigoted views like Spencer's are in America.

There is a political strategy to this. A key office of the anti-fascist movement — ofttimes called "antifa" — is that fascists tin't be immune to accept a platform at any cost. Under this view, the punch isn't about simply feeling adept about chirapsia up a "Nazi" (fifty-fifty if it does feel good to some) but about robbing people similar Spencer of a vocalization.

This is what it looks like when constructive anti-fascism is applied. When broken repeatedly, the nazi becomes meek and then silent.

We can practise it. https://t.co/0mmC1Pd7h3

— North NJ Antifa (@NorthNjAntifa) January 23, 2017

Antifa protesters are articulate that this is a strategy explicitly to bargain with fascism, not just any political view that y'all disagree with. Neo-Nazi, fascist, and racist views, the argument goes, are so extreme that they justify extreme tactics. The worry: If these views aren't completely robbed of any kind of platform, they could proceeds legitimacy — and take advantage of liberal ethics similar gratuitous speech to, ironically, promote their very illiberal messages. (Spencer has certainly gained some legitimacy among his followers by getting to appear on mainstream media outlets like CNN.)

"You're talking about a guy who believes that America belongs to white people and white people alone," Daryle Jenkins, executive director of the 1 People'due south Project, which tracks correct-fly groups, told me. "What are we going to come to the tabular array with him about?"

Jenkins argued that people like Spencer are not innocent in this. When they describe forcefully relocating minorities to other places so white people can have a country to themselves, they're calling for violence against minority groups. Then information technology should come equally no surprise, Jenkins argued, if people respond with their own violence.

There's another issue in how we police force civil discourse: That the dial is a controversy at all is to many another example of what'southward often decried as "respectability politics." The idea, which has long been a part of black political debates, is that if an oppressed or marginalized group just behaves better, they'll get more respect from others — and therefore gain more legitimacy as a move.

As Damon Young argued for the Root, this is non but ineffective but tin can also place an unfair brunt on the people being oppressed or marginalized:

It shifts responsibility away from perpetrators (which in this context would be America) and places it on the victims (which in this context would be blacks in America). Instead of requiring the people and the institutions committing and propagating racist acts to modify, it asks the people harmed by the racism to change in order to end existence harmed by the racism. Which is like getting shot and then getting blamed for standing in front of the bullet.

Respectability politics also asks people to mask some of their genuine, legitimate rage. Afterward literal centuries of white supremacy in the United states, a lot of people are angry that white nationalism could be on the rise again. Focusing and then much on the actions and styles of the movement against Spencer and the alt-right, instead of the actual cause and message that leftist and liberal movements are pushing for, seems to many to miss the signal.

This gets to a broader point about how much of liberalism is full-bodied on keeping a specific kind of social lodge — ane that's focused on peaceful chat and free speech fifty-fifty if it means talking with people with frankly abhorrent views. As Atlantic writer Vann Newkirk explained, "much of [liberalism] clearly favors police force, lodge, and a suspension of disruption starting time, then progress second."

But fascists and other right-wing extremists can have advantage of this — because the idea that everyone deserves a vocalisation ways that fascists deserve a vox too, even if it helps legitimize views in the mainstream that are supposed to be intolerable.

Anthony Oliveira, a PhD candidate at the University of Toronto who's studied some of the history of fascist movements, put it this way: "At some point, someone will propose a concentration of power and winnowing of the public voice, and the public sphere will let information technology articulate the means by which the public sphere can itself be dissolved."

The punch goes confronting Americans' longstanding rejection of politically motivated violence

On the other side, a lot of people have argued that politically motivated violence but has no place in America. This has been the standard Us norm for decades (at least since the finish of widespread lynchings and other anti-blackness violence) — and, frankly, it is odd that it is fifty-fifty up for give-and-take in United states politics today.

Several prominent people, including longtime Captain America writer Nick Spencer (no relation to Richard Spencer), spoke out against the set on. Others, like comedian Sarah Silverman, shared more conflicted thoughts.

Today is difficult, but cheering violence confronting speech, even of the most insufferable, disgusting multifariousness, is not a wait that will age well.

— Nick Spencer (@nickspencer) Jan 20, 2017

The alt correct coining cunt is who got punched? I hate violence ug shit I gotta think on this I'm supe conflicted on what's long-term right. https://t.co/3HAilSpUxy

— Sarah Silverman (@SarahKSilverman) January 22, 2017

The argument hither is simple: America has strong norms confronting violence in politics. We are supposed to settle our political issues through civil discussions, peaceful protests, and the vote. That'due south one reason nosotros revere people similar Martin Luther King Jr. so much: They got a lot washed — notably, including fighting racism — through peaceful means, exemplifying the kind of discourse we should strive for in politics. Punching someone, no matter how detestable his views are, should be out of the question.

"Nosotros want a civil social club, where ideas are met with other ideas," Randy Cohen, who formerly wrote the Ethicist column in New York Times magazine, told Vice. "We don't want a lodge that encourages thuggish beliefs, where if someone has politics unlike from yours, yous get to beat them up. Aside from it just being morally wrong in itself to attack people, there's the practical consideration that in a social club where ideas are met with fists, 1 is as probable to be the punched as the puncher, and information technology's no fun to exist punched in the face."

When I chosen Cohen, he was outraged this is even a question, saying he will talk about it no more than across what he already told Vice and Newsweek.

Others argue that violence tin hurt left-wing causes — and reinforce extreme right-wing views. When I asked nigh this, Michael Kazin, a history professor at Georgetown University and editor of Dissent mag, told me, "Because people on the left want to promote a vision of a nonviolent society governed by the ideals of democracy, equality, and cultural tolerance. And considering not-leftists often see [the left] equally a confusing, lawless force. Violence tends to ostend that view."

Kazin's first point gets to an ideological contradiction amid liberals who embrace punching Spencer and others classified as fascists: Ane reason that Nazis and fascists are seen by liberals as and so evil is because they take used violence for political purposes.

As political scientist Sheri Berman explained for Vox, "[F]ascists embraced violence as a ways and an terminate. Fascism was revolutionary: It aimed non to reform but to destroy the modernistic earth — and for this, a constant and probably trigger-happy struggle would be necessary. Violence was not simply the method through which revolution would be achieved; it was valuable in and of itself, providing supporters with powerful 'bonding' experiences and 'cleansing' the nation of its weaknesses and decadence."

So to condemn Nazism and fascism at least in part considering of their use of politically motivated violence and so plough effectually and punch someone in the face because he'south a Nazi — and bond over it online through memes and jokes — seems hypocritical.

After all, it wasn't long ago that liberals widely praised the American Ceremonious Liberties Union for defending the free speech rights of anybody, including groups similar the Ku Klux Klan and actual neo-Nazis.

And it was just a few months ago when Michelle Obama campaigned for Hillary Clinton arguing, "When they go low, nosotros get high."

The fact that some liberals are backing abroad from that stance — one that pushed for gratis, peaceful public discourse to a higher place all — shows how extreme politics has gotten in a short period of time.

America is at a worrying moment in its political history

America's political climate has hit a point not many saw coming.

Few expected the ascent of Trump. From the moment he rode downwards his escalator to call Mexican immigrants criminals and "rapists" to the indicate he said Muslims should be banned from the US to that fourth dimension he was caught on tape proverb he can "grab [women] by the pussy" and get away with it because he'southward a celebrity, his entrada was always treated equally a nightmarish joke that couldn't really win the White Business firm.

And Trump himself advocated for violence in his campaign rallies, telling supporters that he would pay for their legal bills if they punched anti-Trump protesters: "If yous run across somebody getting gear up to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you lot? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell. I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise."

No one could break this anti-violence norm, it was widely believed, and get away with it. Liberals roundly condemned the possibility of a serious political figure embracing violence against peaceful protesters.

Then Trump won, dispelling many Americans' views — which were particularly set by Barack Obama's ascendance as the first blackness president — that a racist, sexist, and even trigger-happy message couldn't win the presidency in 2016.

"We're looking at a lot of tension edifice rapidly," Jenkins of the One People'due south Projection said. "Everyone is getting frustrated at the fact that for the nearly function, white supremacists take more or less taken over the White House. Nosotros take fought them for 70 years to proceed that from happening. And here it comes again."

This has led to a sense that we are living in extreme times in American politics. And with people worried, they are trying to justify actions that they may have found abhorrent just a couple of years or even months ago.

bowenwourfact.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/26/14369388/richard-spencer-punched-alt-right-trump

Share this post