The Violence and Hypocrisy of Liberal Statists Like Debbie Wasserman Schultz

When statist hypocrites such as Debbie Wasserman Schultz claim “violence and intimidation” are unacceptable and should be “unequivocally condemned,” they should be reminded of the violent crux upon which government operates.

by Joey Clark

The outbursts of violence at political events across the nation this election cycle—whether the several incidents at Donald Trump rallies or the recent brouhaha between Bernie Sanders supporters and party officials at the Nevada Democratic Convention—have sent the political elites into an indignant tizzy.

It is one thing to use abusive language before our political betters, but to actually engage in violence when emotions run red-hot? Well, the elites will have none of this savage behavior. Their noble aim is always to correct and perfect their lessers, but as is common with most noble goals, this is merely a pretense.

No, the ruling-class, for all its rhetoric and high ideals, is motivated by baser urges, particularly their lust to dominate other people’s lives. They come from the tradition of Nimrod. They are hunters of men and builders of prideful follies. Thus, any signs of ressentiment in the populace spurs these predators to sic their sycophants on the rabble they supposedly represent in order to shame “the people” into acting more domesticated, or as the elites would have it, “civilized.”

I can think of no one better to represent this waddling, web-footed march of the toadies than Democratic party chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. We are told to assume she is a mammal just we are all mammals. We are told she is of good intent just as all politicos are of good intent. We are told she is fit to rule over the nation in her capacity as chair of the DNC, but I am not certain of any of these claims.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz brings to mind the word “amphibious” in both appearance and character—but instead of having the ability to live on both land and water, Wasserman Schultz seems to fancy herself able to thrive in both the halls of power as well as the gutter on main street. Well, the gutter folks now beg to differ, Debbie. The democratic hordes are fed up with the Democratic party, the GOP, and your incessant prattling dressed up as moral righteousness.

In response to the outbreak of violence and threats that transpired during and after the Nevada Democratic Convention, Debbie Wasserman Schultz proceeded to lecture Bernie Sanders and his supporters by comparing them to Donald Trump’s acolytes, saying, “It is never OK for violence and intimidation to be the response to that frustration. That’s what happens with the Trump campaign. We can never resort to the tactics that they engage in.”

She continues her talking-point infused tongue-lashing in her interview with Wolf Blitzer:

“There should never be a ‘but’ when comes to condemning violence and intimidation. Violence and intimidation are never acceptable under any circumstances…even if the Sanders supporters were frustrated, there is never under any circumstance a place for violence and intimidation to be resorted in response.”

This would be all well and good if Debbie Wasserman Schultz actually meant what she said. However, when it comes to Debbie and all other varieties of statists, there is always a big hairy “but” lurking around the corner on the question of when violence is legitimate.

Does Wasserman Schultz she really think “violence and intimidation are never acceptable under any circumstances“?

Well, if she does, then she should resign her post, disown her past work in politics, and join the unwashed masses in condemning the ultimate purveyor of “violence and intimidation”—the state.

My guess is she will not do this.

You see, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her ilk carry within their short-sighted minds an awful form of dissonance. When they see a few rowdy Americans behaving violently towards one another, these statists become the first to say “violence and intimidation” must be condemned. Yet, when it comes to passing new laws, they are mute on exactly what it means to “enforce” law.

Are not most laws handed down by government unwarranted, violent threats? Indeed, they are. Yet, Wasserman Schultz will claim the law is merely a useful tool, a set of guidelines for “our” big social club to organize ourselves, or put another way, for her to organize other people.

Statists such as Debbie, do not like being reminded that the law is more a “club” for beating people over the head and not a “club” for meeting with our fellows, sipping cocktails, and discussing how “we” build the perfect society. The law is not some tool or harmless guideline for the social engineering of our big social club called society. It is always backed by the threat of force and ultimately death if one resists enforcement.

You see, Debbie, the very essence of government is “violence and intimidation.” The state is a monopoly on force and jealously guards its authority to administer punishment as it sees fit. And since the state is nothing more than some people claiming authority over other people, on which side of this divide do you find yourself, Debbie? Considering you are a leader of a major American political party, have you not engaged in “violence and intimidation” in ways much more vast than a few frustrated protesters?

All this said, I do not give a pass to Bernie Sanders’ or any other candidate’s supporters when they resort to violence. I am here to condemn not just their frustrated outbursts, but also their “organized” violence as a democratic herd that gives amphibians such as Wasserman Schultz an excuse for power over our lives in the first place.

Yet, I do understand the mob’s anger.

When people are offered power and told they are fit to rule over others, they expect to be able to use it. And when they are denied this “birthright” by the machinations of party elites, I am not surprised to see them behave like brutes. They are merely emulating their “representatives” in a literal way, and this is exactly what the ruling-class fears most about democracy’s rowdy mobs—the worst aspects of themselves.

As St. Augustine writes in The City of God:

“Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, “What do you mean by seizing the whole earth; because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor.”

So, the next time, statist hypocrites such as Debbie Wasserman Schultz claim “violence and intimidation” are unacceptable and should be “unequivocally condemned,” let us hold them to their word, while reminding them of the violent crux upon which government operates.