No, Of Course You Can't Punch Nazis in the Face

[EasyAce]

By Charles C.W. Cooke
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444126/it-was-wrong-anti-trump-protestors-punch-richard-spencer

The New York Times asks:

Is it O.K. to punch a Nazi?

That is not a brainteaser or a hypothetical question posed by a magazine on Twitter. It is an actual question bouncing around the
internet after an attack on a well-known far-right activist, Richard B. Spencer, in Washington after the inauguration of Donald J.
Trump as president on Friday.

I must confess to being surprised that we’re debating this as earnestly as we are, and to being even more alarmed at how many
self-described “liberals” are among those answering “yes.” Of course it’s not acceptable to punch non-violent actors in the face.
This isn’t a matter of degree. It’s not a question of timing. It’s a matter of foundational Enlightenment principle.

It is uncontroversial to note that violence can be an acceptable response to violence. It is widely accepted, too, that if violence is
imminent or guaranteed, some preemptive action can be warranted. But violence can never be an acceptable response to passive
ideology. That goes for Richard Spencer as much as for anyone. As far as I can see, the most common “argument” in favor of
punching Nazis rests upon some pretty brazen special pleading: To wit, that Nazism is “different” because a) it exists outside our
accepted cultural tramlines and b) it has a shocking history when put into practice. But that’s always the argument for the violation
of norms, which is precisely why we have those norms in the first instance. To prevent the government from deciding who is
permitted to speak and who is “different,” we enjoy the First Amendment. To prevent private citizens from making the same
determination, we have laws against assault and battery. In neither provision is there a lacuna-creating asterisk: “* Unless you
really dislike them.”

“Different,” by definition is invariably in the eye of the beholder. Do I personally think that Richard Spencer’s views are illiberal
and toxic? Yes, I do. Do I think that the ideology he espouses is inimical to the order that I cherish? Yes, I do. Does that give me
the right to punch him in the face? No, it damn well does not. You don’t fight for liberalism by abandoning liberalism, and you
can’t burnish your “anti-fascist” credentials by appropriating that which you hate. Richard Spencer is an American citizen. He’s
as entitled to be as wrong and as destructive and as ugly and as doltish as is anybody else with that privilege.

This is not mere philosophy; it’s practically important, too. Why? Well, because those who would carve out an exception for
Spencer and his ilk are, whether they know it or not, opening the door to a suicidal debate as to which ideologies can be deemed
sufficiently threatening to lose civilizational protection. I will grant happily that Nazism is incompatible with American liberty. But
there are a good many other doctrines that share that honor, among them communism and radical Islam. Does this mean I can
punch Angela Davis in the face, or that my doing so would be fine? Should I have been given a free pass and a shrug of the
shoulders if I’d clocked Eric Hobsbawm? And how much latitude should we give to individuals to draw up their own lists of
Acceptable Punchees? I happen to believe that the half of Democrats who want to ban “hate speech” are enemies of liberty.
Can I assault them?

A great test of any free country is how it treats its dissenters. The man who agrees with the majority is in no more need of
protection than the man who parrots the talking points of the cultural and political establishment. But the heretic — the man
who for better (Martin Luther King) or for worse (Richard Spencer) declines to endorse the tenets of the status quo? That’s
the guy who you need to watch. Within the bounds of liberty he may be reviled or championed, ignored or followed, and
shunned or emulated. But he should never, ever be punched in the face for his opinion.

(Emphases added.---EA.)

One thinks of the ancient maxim of Frank Chodorov: Heterodoxy is a necessary condition of a free society . . . The
danger, for those who hold freedom as the highest good, is not the ideas espoused but the power they seek. Let them
rant their heads off---that is their right, which we cannot afford to infringe---but let us keep from them the political
means of depriving everybody else of the same right.

[skeeter]

To ask the question is to put on the proverbial brownshirt.

[EC]

Good article.

A little saddening that it needed to be explicitly written, but that's the offended culture we have.

[truth_seeker]

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Nazi Party to march, in Skokie Illinois. The Nazi Party was represented by the ACLU.

Today's liberals are truly the JVs compared to those from previous generations and decades.

I think that some of them think since they have (or want) advanced degrees in black studies or feminists studies, they know everything.

Yet they know little. So when they discover they are ignorant, they go into infantile tantrums, start breaking things, crying, etc.

I blame some of their plight, to having been mis-educated by ignorant liberals.

[dfwgator]

[TomSea]

I've seen pictures of Spencer and without the mustache, his hair to me, closely cropped, does remind me of Hitler's but I wouldn't post a picture of the demented mind here.

It's not okay to do what this hooded ruffian did but Spencer or anyone else, is playing with fire, publicizing his views and activism.  It's not okay, it is very illegal.

[skeeter]

I've seen pictures of Spencer and without the mustache, his hair to me, closely cropped, does remind me of Hitler's but I wouldn't post a picture of the demented mind here.

It's not okay to do what this hooded ruffian did but Spencer or anyone else, is playing with fire, publicizing his views and activism.  It's not okay, it is very illegal.

Whats not OK is to even come close to justifying violence against anyone for expressing their opinion.

[dfwgator]

Can we still run 'em over?

[Hondo69]

Can we still run 'em over?

 

It seems to me as a businessman Trump knows how to keep a close eye on taxpayer dollars.  And it also seems to me that during any given year we have assets lying around that go to waste 90% of the time.  Only during the dead of winter are they in use.  Therefore, from a purely dollar and cents standpoint we may want to put some of these wasted assets to good use on protestors.