Culture Wars
In September 1915, British troops stood ready to charge German trenches at Loos. Instead of preparing their advance with artillery shelling, they decided to use chlorine and mustard gas to flush out the German entrenchments. As the British deployed the gas cylinders, they learned a harsh lesson: the effectiveness of poison gas relies entirely on which way the wind blows. In this case, the gas was blown directly back into the faces of the panicked British soldiers. If one’s success is dependent on which way the wind blows, they should be extremely cautious when deploying weapons of mass destruction, lest the weapon be used against them.
On December 4, 2024, United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson was shot in the back in the middle of Manhattan. His killer, (allegedly) Luigi Mangione, had a long and storied history with United Healthcare. He apparently suffered from spondylolisthesis, where a vertebra in the spine slips out of alignment, causing severe pain. It was this condition, and lack of quality healthcare to treat it, that likely led to the CEO slaying, based on his online posts and discussions about spinal surgery.
Because this was such a high-profile event, we will spare you the moral observations of the shooting itself as we assume you have heard them all. This will not be an examination of the American healthcare system, nor the division between our two political camps. Instead, we intend to shine a light on the public’s reaction to the killing and what that says about the state of American political reactionism.
Acts of political violence have almost always been condemned by political leaders and the public. It’s widely understood that anything short of explicit intolerance and persecution of violent actors will likely encourage more of them. Even the first assassination attempt of Donald Trump, the most divisive figure in recent memory, was met with stern resistance by the Biden Administration. What ought to stand out about the shooting of Brian Thompson is that the complete opposite happened – instead of condemning this violence, society at large praised it. Mangione has become a cultural icon, receiving hundreds of love letters in prison, appearing on t-shirts, and even being culturally canonized as a saint and appearing on clothing and prayer candles as such. Distressingly, millions of people have even called for more assassinations. Like poison gas, it is important to remember that the usefulness of political violence depends entirely on which way the wind blows.
A not-at-all disturbing trend.
Condemning the general use of violence in achieving political aims would be hypocritical. After all, we celebrate exactly that every fourth of July. The American revolutionaries, however, possessed a few key criteria that today’s revolutionaries don’t have. Before engaging in political violence, the following criteria must have robust and well-thought-out plans of action.
The first of these criteria is to have a definable objective. In the American revolution, this was clear: no taxation without representation. The colonists felt as if their interests weren’t being observed in the English parliament, which was unacceptable as they were still tasked with paying taxes just as any mainland citizen was. When the English crown refused to acknowledge this grievance despite numerous petitions, the colonists turned to violence. Even after hostilities had commenced, the colonists still tried to achieve reconciliation with England through the Olive Branch Petition, which King George refused to even receive. The objective in this example is very clear and achievable: first, representation in parliament. After that failed, achieve independence.
The second criterion is a means to achieve the definable objective above. If violence is the means that are justified by the ends, then what is one willing to employ to achieve those ends? In an 1862 letter to Horace Greeley, Abraham Lincoln wrote
“…My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
Lincoln had a clear, definable objective and knew that violence was the only way to achieve it. In so doing, over 800,000 Americans were killed, including over 50,000 non-combatants, but hardly anyone alive today would say that it wasn’t worth it. Lincoln employed the only method possible to achieve his means and did so with brutal efficiency.
Lastly, if a political movement contains both a defined objective and a means to achieve that objective, it also needs a way to maintain those goals over time. An example is the 1787 Constitutional Convention where statesmen from across the nation came together to set forth a constitution that would endure across generations. The existing Articles of Confederation had proven to be weak and would not keep the union intact from either domestic or foreign turmoil. Therefore, a system of checks and balances that would give no one person or institution too much power was established. This system persists to this day, ensuring that the lives lost in the revolution were not done so in vain. Without this system, constant wars of revenge and power struggles as seen in feudal Europe would have been guaranteed.
Without a barrel, a bullet that catches a spark explodes randomly, unpredictably, and can cause damage and death to anything nearby. The purpose of the barrel is to focus and concentrate the gases so that the bullet goes exactly where the shooter intends with all of the force in one place. The slaying of Brian Thompson contained no clear definable objective, no means to achieve said non-existent objective, and no way to maintain any reforms made. It has not created any meaningful change in law or in culture and has only succeeded in driving a wedge between people who think that this behavior is unacceptable and those who want more of it.
Those calling for more violence, likewise, also lack any clear momentum or purpose beyond simply eliminating people they view to be the creator of their woes. Like poison gas, a weapon without constraint is dangerous even to those who wield it, and any movement that can’t satisfy these criteria is doomed to perpetual violence and suffering.
It's very easy to predict what this movement might look like in the opposite direction. It’s not inconceivable that a would-be assassin is, right at this moment, watching all of the favorable press and attention that Mangione has received and wondering if they can become a hero or martyr as well. In today’s political climate, assassinating, say, the president of Planned Parenthood would certainly fall into the same category as Brian Thompson’s slaying. After all, abortion is healthcare (according to the left) and killing healthcare CEO’s is quite popular. This tit for tat behavior with no definition of ‘winning’ will undoubtedly cause more harm than it solves by a very painful margin.
We encourage anyone who feels positive sentiment towards political violence to consider what it may look like for the wind to blow in the opposite direction.
