My opinion: using this story in political terms, liberals tend to think that almost any action is justified as long as they feel it is morally right to advance their cause. “By any means necessary” means what it says…Court packing, using corruption in gov’t to fund their causes, lawfare, harassment, violence, etc., are all just a means to an end for their ideology.
You can certainly split hairs when learning that a lot of this is bought and paid for by a few billionaires and gov’t skimming (NGOs being the poster child) but the fact remains that liberals, the farther left they are, the more comfortable they are with “by any men’s necessary”.
I think you're right, in that leftists are way comfortable justifying the means they use with the ends they seek. But the right imo, is becoming more comfortable with it.
At times yes the right does it too. But at least in what I see the left is infinitely more comfortable pushing past norms, guardrails and lawful action. Think violent campus protests and criminal Tesla sabotage just to name two recent examples.
Pro life people mostly pray and sing. Nobody attacked Joe Biden or Hilary Clinton supporters the way Trumps supporters were violently attacked. The degrees of action are significant.
By the way, really enjoy your writing Jon. Keep it coming.
Great article. Great issue. This is self-serving, but you might appreciate this podcast where we tackle this issue from interesting angles. Skip forward to 22:24 to skip past unrelated stuff. https://youtu.be/zyrl7bKHHU8
If I could have traveled back in time, I would have worked it so Taft won the presidency and buffoon Wilson did not ever get near power.
Don't know how I would have done it, but had Wilson not won, we would never have entered WWI and Dolph would have died in a Bavarian old soldiers' home.
True, TR would have to have been neutralized, but of course, we're talkin' fantasy here.
I would also add that the use of force of any kind embarks in the same direction. Just as some believe that violence can be used to achieve a so-called "greater good," we can apply the same concept to force, whether it's an unjust law, taxation, etc. Proponents of such tend to be fine with force, so long as it serves their own interest, and this doesn't necessarily need to include violence itself, but the threat of violence.
My first question is, you can time travel and all you can think is to kill baby Hitler? Why not stop the British from their naval blockade of Germany after the Armistice? Or the awful WWI reparations that hobbled the German economic recovery? For that matter, why not make a quick stop in the year 2000, to prevent Sarah Blakely from inventing Spanx? That's just false advertising.
My opinion: using this story in political terms, liberals tend to think that almost any action is justified as long as they feel it is morally right to advance their cause. “By any means necessary” means what it says…Court packing, using corruption in gov’t to fund their causes, lawfare, harassment, violence, etc., are all just a means to an end for their ideology.
You can certainly split hairs when learning that a lot of this is bought and paid for by a few billionaires and gov’t skimming (NGOs being the poster child) but the fact remains that liberals, the farther left they are, the more comfortable they are with “by any men’s necessary”.
I think you're right, in that leftists are way comfortable justifying the means they use with the ends they seek. But the right imo, is becoming more comfortable with it.
At times yes the right does it too. But at least in what I see the left is infinitely more comfortable pushing past norms, guardrails and lawful action. Think violent campus protests and criminal Tesla sabotage just to name two recent examples.
Pro life people mostly pray and sing. Nobody attacked Joe Biden or Hilary Clinton supporters the way Trumps supporters were violently attacked. The degrees of action are significant.
By the way, really enjoy your writing Jon. Keep it coming.
Great article. Great issue. This is self-serving, but you might appreciate this podcast where we tackle this issue from interesting angles. Skip forward to 22:24 to skip past unrelated stuff. https://youtu.be/zyrl7bKHHU8
Love your Substack!
If I could have traveled back in time, I would have worked it so Taft won the presidency and buffoon Wilson did not ever get near power.
Don't know how I would have done it, but had Wilson not won, we would never have entered WWI and Dolph would have died in a Bavarian old soldiers' home.
True, TR would have to have been neutralized, but of course, we're talkin' fantasy here.
Very good thought provoking article to start my day!
I would also add that the use of force of any kind embarks in the same direction. Just as some believe that violence can be used to achieve a so-called "greater good," we can apply the same concept to force, whether it's an unjust law, taxation, etc. Proponents of such tend to be fine with force, so long as it serves their own interest, and this doesn't necessarily need to include violence itself, but the threat of violence.
My first question is, you can time travel and all you can think is to kill baby Hitler? Why not stop the British from their naval blockade of Germany after the Armistice? Or the awful WWI reparations that hobbled the German economic recovery? For that matter, why not make a quick stop in the year 2000, to prevent Sarah Blakely from inventing Spanx? That's just false advertising.
I don't know if you're being serious or trolling, but either way, stop.