GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Matt Stoller apparently got his a$$ beaten down. I actually don’t have the beef against Stoller that many others in the right-o-sphere do; after all, he was kind enough to give me a front-page link at MyDD, something that the good folks at RedState never felt generous enough to do.. *cough* *cough* And he’s a former classmate of my wife.
But there are life lessons about the Leftist outlook here. Stoller writes:
So on Saturday, I got smacked in the face. I’ve been snacking on Advil for a few days, musing on violence and its somewhat surprising (to me, anyway) impact. A month and a half ago, a women across the hall from my apartment threw herself out the window, and a few days ago some very angry dude decided that my face needed a redesign.
And like I said, this post isn’t to celebrate this. But look at what Stoller’s takeaway is:
The psychological impact of violence was pretty unexpected. It makes me less trusting, more prone to withdraw, full of rage, and more suspicious. I do not understand why pacifism and/or the avoidance of war are sneered at.
Actually this incident (as Stoller describes it) is exactly why pacifism and (at least knee-jerk) avoidance of war are sneered at. Look at this. This was apparently an uninvited sucker punch. There’s really no explanation for it. This isn’t a situation that can be explained away by blowback or anything like that. Some SkekSis just decided he wanted to drain a pod person, and he did it.
I’m sympathetic to liberal goals — end poverty, hunger, war, etc. There’s no difference between me and the most left-leaning of lefties here. I suspect most conservatives are on the same page here.
The difference is that I also recognize that there are a lot of people out there like the guy that cold-cocked Stoller. I would even argue that Stoller is the exception, not the guy who sucker punched him. Quite frankly, we’re only about 5,000 years removed from being nothing more than nasty little monkeys living in the state of nature. Maybe after a million years or so we’ll have evolved enough that our hyper-individualist, survivalist instincts will be bred out of us. But we’re just not there yet. If you need any other proof look at what happened within 24 hours of the breakdown of civil authority in New Orleans (and no, I’m not calling black people “monkeys,” anymore than I’m calling the whites who engaged in looting a bunch of nasty monkeys).
Moreover, these people are drawn to power and violence. It’s not accidental that the USSR was eventually run by Stalin, that Germany was eventually run by Hitler, that Cambodia was run by Pol Pot, and that China was run by a pedophile like Mao. And its exactly this attraction to power of the worst possible people that makes me recoil at the thought of the concentrations of power that leftism proposes. People like Stoller like to envision what the world would look like if a benevolent philosopher-king ran a centralized authority. If history is any guide, you’re much more likely to get Pat Buchanan.
This should be an important life lesson for Stoller. Instead he’s left wailing “it wasn’t supposed to be this way!” I have a feeling this won’t be the last time in his life that he feels that way, unless he quickly develops some much-needed skepticism about human nature.
PS Yes, I have been randomly attacked, twice, so yes I feel a good deal of sympathy. And yes, I was beaten up in elementary school, until my father threatened to give me my own trouble if I came home without fighting back again. So the next time I got hit, I beat the living bejeezus out of the kid. Never got hit again. So yes, I too, like Stoller, think teh [sic] violence is not awesome. But I also recognize that sometimes violence is the only answer to violence.
May 17th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Good God, here you are defending conservatism, which for 100+ years has defended individualism, and say the only reason you do so is to defend against the primary evil of… individualism.
Would Ronald Reagan be forming a new party if he were still here?
May 17th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Sean Oxendine:
“Quite frankly, we’re only about 5,000 years removed from being nothing more than nasty little monkeys living in the state of nature.”
That’s a fascinating sentence. It seems to accept evolution but still posits a thousands of years young earth. I don’t need to point out there are cities older than 5,000 years old. Oops.
Young men are naturally violent. A healthy society will channel that violence under the leadership of older men and punish violence outside their control. A failing society will make no attempt to channel young men’s violent tendencies and watch it spill over the society. Violence in itself is adiaphorous.
May 17th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
So I assume you’re fine with someone assaulting you for no reason? Good. I hope someone does. Then you can blame it on pacifists again.
May 17th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
*sigh*
1) Individualism is a great thing, and I’ll never back down from defending it. But the reason I’m not a utopian anarchist or even a minarchist (or pacifist) is because I recognize that there are lots and lots of bad people out there. Conservatism has never stood for unconstrained individualism, and recognizes that there needs to be a government for precisely that reason. See post #2.
2) It does accept evolution and doesn’t posit a thousands of year old Earth. The 5,000 number is basically pulled out of the air, and is meant as a rhetorical device rather than an archaeological observation. Though there’s really only a handful of cities that pre-date 3K BC.
3) Do they still teach reading comprehension in high school? Good lord.
May 17th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Sean, one shouldn’t take a primary ideal like individualism, and slander it like that. There are other words to describe what you describe. Why take a noble thing and drag it though the mud?
Moreover, the actions you describe are NOT individualism. Individualism means each acting in his own interest, SHORT OF preventing others from doing the same… short of using force against others.
May 17th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Sean, I’m sensing some irritation there.
I seemed to notice an attitude of superiority against earlier eras.
I suppose that’s a common bias today but it leads to odd beliefs. I suppose you’re aware Egyptians began building Pyramids around the time they should have been “nasty little monkeys living in the state of nature”.
An acceptance of the theory of evolution is quite distinct from an acceptance of “progress”. For example there’s genetic evidence some of humanity’s aggressive tendencies are linked to mutations around 20,000 years ago.
I think referring to our ancestors “as nasty little monkeys” (I suppose you meant apes) takes away from your very valid argument.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Doug,
The irritation was mostly directed at #3, which I’m *still* trying to figure out. But like I said, the “5,000 years removed from monkeys thing” is just meant as a rhetorical flourish (and of course, even 5,000 years ago a very small minority of our species was living in areas constructing the pyramids). The larger point is that we’re just not that far removed from the state of nature, and our genetics still reflect this (or its all about original sin, if you wish). Bottom line: Man is flawed, which is why pacifism is sneered at by people with even a basic appreciation of human nature.
Metro,
Obviously in the post I wasn’t talking about individualism as a political philosophy (capital “i” Individualism, if you will). I think you get my larger point.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Sean, I accept the humans evolved from earlier Apes. I’d argue we never left the “state of nature”. So we’re in agreement on impracticality of pacifism.
May 17th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
“Some SkekSis just decided he wanted to drain a pod person, and he did it.”
I just wanted to take a moment and appreciate this powerful metaphor. Heal the crystal!