While a tsunami of healthy, hilarious, and ever-so-understandable schadenfreude broke out in social media after the shooting of a predatory health care CEO, the punditry scolded us and clutched their pearls, warning us of the dangers of political violence.
But 48.36 percent of the population — those who didn’t vote for Trump — are not as deranged as the 49.97 percent who did. Having lived through years of MAGA political violence, the glorification of MAGA political violence, and the return of a MAGA criminal to the White House with a cast of MAGA goons having a net worth of $340 billion, at least 48.36 percent of the population can distinguish between political violence that serves justice and political violence that serves fascism and oligarchy.
I have argued in the past that, as Putinization comes to America, there is a limit to what Americans will put up with. If the people of South Korea, Belarus, Georgia, Peru, Slovakia, and even Russia will take to the streets in a heartbeat because they hate being kicked around, then Americans, in a country born out of violent revolution, will take to the streets in half a heartbeat. The grassroots political instincts that MAGA tapped and perverted to serve fascism and oligarchy are just as present in those who hate fascism and oligarchy. The CEO shooter reminded us of that, and no doubt terrified those who will do everything possible to retain for themselves a monopoly on violence.
So, mystery shooter, whoever you are and wherever you are, you’re obviously the hero and inspiration that a lot of people need right now. The punditry, clutching their pearls in their corporate gigs, would have us believe that all political violence is equally bad. No it isn’t, because of the difference between justice and injustice. It’s safe to assume that that neutralized CEO, indirectly, out of corporate greed, caused the premature deaths of tens of thousands of people. We can confidently say that he deserves our contempt, even if saying that he, or anyone, deserves to die is farther than we want to go.
They’ll probably catch this guy and make an example of him. But if they take him alive, we’ll get to hear why he did it. America’s CEO’s, and those who are preparing to Putinize America, won’t like that story one bit, because it probably will be a story about predation, exploitation, and the greed of the powerful. And it probably will be a story about one of the many powerless people who died because of it, someone whom the CEO shooter loved.
To kill is absolutely wrong. And I am not saying that because of religion, I’m not religious. Thus many people of many countries have died for “country” because of a supposed patriotism, such as Japan, Germany during WWII, Napoleon, the French Revolution, Rome, China during the Great purge (Mao). Look at us during the Vietnam war, I went because I was assigned, not because I needed to protect my country – all the while the most powerful had control over me and many young women and men. The hate in Israel, Gaza, all stoked by power. But, no one has the right to kill, because they perceived a family member was wronged.
Hi Henry: One can frame some interesting questions here that many people have debated in the past. Is it wrong to kill someone in self defense? Would it be wrong to kill someone (say, a school shooter) before he kills a bunch of children? If all killing is wrong, is all killing equally wrong? Would it have been better for the world if one of the attempts to assassinate Hitler had succeeded? Should reasonable people mourn the loss of a predatory CEO who wronged a great many people just as much as reasonable people would mourn the loss of, say, a Joan Baez?
I was reacting to your subtle hint that maybe the man deserved killing? You know as well as I people shouldn’t go around killing because they feel wronged. Defending oneself or your family or anyone under dire circumstance is different. I would have volunteered to assassinate a monster such as Hitler or Assad or maybe Genghis – what about the Viking when they supposedly killed anyone in a village, should they have been assassinated, or do we chalk it up to “oh well those were the times”? Unfortunately today, it seems killing is easier for some or attempting to kill anyone – is the right solution. I am just against killing because I saw lots of it in Vietnam. That is my PTSD
Hi Henry: Let’s just say that I understand why millions of Americans are reacting to this the way they are, and that I don’t think we should condemn them for it, given how many people have been abandoned by the health care industry and how many have been bankrupted, and how helpless they feel to do anything about it.
Agree
I hesitated on commenting on this post, but wanted to say that I do not condone any murder. Having said that, I truly believe the tidal wave of on line reactions came in large part from a deep rage with our insurance system. The chart I saw listing denial of coverage percentages shows United at the top with 32 percent. That is a lot of insured people needing
coverage for health issues. A recent experience of being prescribed a new medication brought this issue home to me.
I was told by the pharmacy that coverage was denied by the insurer. I called the insurer, waited several minutes while representative researched the issue, then was told the medication would be covered and they would notify the pharmacy accordingly. No idea why!!
Hi Jo: If this were a better world, all this attention focused on the sins of health insurance companies would lead to some changes by the Congress. But given our new political reality, things will probably get worse. And all questions of murder aside, I admire how Luigi Mangione did not follow so many other Gen Z men in foolishing moving toward right-wing nonsense.