Shortly before President Trump's inauguration, the activist Christopher Rufo wrote a piece warning that violent leftwing groups in the District of Columbia would try to disrupt the event, and tying such groups to a network of leftwing organizations. That disturbed me because it sounded as if Rufo, and perhaps allies within the new administration, were hoping for something like that to occur so that it could take drastic action against opponents. I was not particularly surprised that nothing happened. Tonight, it seems, senior administration officials have briefed leading press outlets warning that the administration is going to use the assassination of Charlie Kirk in exactly this way.
An historical parallel had already been on my mind. On February 27, 1933, four weeks after Adolf Hitler had become Chancellor of Germany, a Dutch communist named Marinus van der Lubbe set the Reichstag--the German parliament--on fire, and it burned to the ground. Just one day after the fire the German president, Paul von Hindenburg, issued a decree suspending freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and the right of habeas corpus within Germany, as the Nazi government blamed the German Communist Party and warned of an effort to take over all Germany. Meanwhile, neutral observers inside and outside of Germany concluded that the Nazis had actually set the fire themselves. One week later Hitler's coalition won a bare majority in Parliament, and the new Reichstag essentially ceded all its powers to Hitler a few weeks later in the Enabling Act. Thousands of anti-Nazis were arrested and sent to concentration camps. The Nazis arrested and tried three communist leaders, as well as van der Lubbe, for the fire, but the German courts had not yet lost all their independence and the three leading communists were acquitted. Decades later, a new generation of German historians concluded that Van der Lubbe had in fact set the fire all by himself, just as he had claimed.
Tonight's stories suggest that the administration will use Kirk's assassination the same way--albeit with even less excuse. Tyler Robinson, the young man arrested for killing Kirk, clearly has no ties to any leading leftist organization, and despite the regrettable statements of the Governor of Utah, no clear evidence of his political views has yet been released. Interestingly enough, already an online chorus has proclaimed that Robinson is an acolyte of Nick Fuentes, another right wing influencer who has been feuding with Kirk, but there is no evidence for that either. Nor can the situation in the United States with respect to violence really be compared to Germany in 1932-33, when the Nazis, the Social Democrats and the Communists all had uniformed militias including hundreds of thousands of men who had battled each other in the streets for years, with significant loss of life. Yet senior officials have told reporters that the administration may try to take the non-profit tax exemption away from George Soros's Open Society Foundations [sic] and the Ford Foundation on the grounds that they support left wing groups that carry out violence against conservatives. They may also try to charge them under the RICO law, and President Trump has talked about designating ANTIFA--which has little or no organization--as a terrorist group. I would not be surprised if the administration also tried to designate any protesters on behalf of Palestinian rights as terrorists, since many conservatives already identify such protesters as Hamas supporters.
As Donald Trump has found out himself, the government can impose huge burdens on anyone that it chooses to accuse of a serious crime, even if the target is never convicted. Cases against leading foundations could stay in the news for years, providing ammunition for Republican attacks and, in necessary diverting attention from the economy. Meanwhile, Trump has already proven that he does not object to political violence on his own behalf by pardoning all the January 6 rioters. He isn't interested in toning down our political debate, only in reserving the strongest words and actions for his enemies. Already he is treating Kirk like a national hero who was killed fighting a foreign war.
We are in difficult times.
2 comments:
What we have is a large group of people centered on personality for a psychopathic leadership with which coexistence is not possible.
Designating groups as enemies of the nation seems like a slippery slope toward dubious accusations based on guilt by association. Someone joins the mailing list of some group they barely know. Then another person in that group engages in violence and then the merely curious person is suddenly a member of a terrorist group. Will due process still hold? Other rights?
Post a Comment