Nasty, Poor, Solitary, Brutish, and Short

I’ve avoided chiming in on the post-Charlottesville discussion about whether or not it is appropriate to respond to Nazi and white supremacist violence with violence.  I think no one wants to hear what I have to say about this.  Conservatives are trying to make claims of moral equivalence stick.  Liberals and progressives are on about how we must unite, insisting that only love can conquer hate.  There’s certainly a lot of BS on both sides of this issue.  And I just can’t resist stepping in it.

    As is usual when I come to think about political matters, the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes is an important point of reference for me.  Hobbes reminds us that unless we find some way to escape the causes of human conflict—greed, fear, and glory—we will be in a war of all against all, and our lives will be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”  Thus, according to Hobbes, our first and most pressing concern should be to seek peace with our fellows, insofar as this is possible.  A look around the world, at almost any point in history, provides ample empirical confirmation of Hobbes’s claims.  Where people cannot live peaceably together, they cannot prosper.

     Hobbes argues that where peace is impossible, we may do whatever we think fit for our own defense.  Perhaps Hobbes goes a bit far here; some sort of restraint in one’s dealings with others might well be a necessary precondition for seeking peace.  But even if one rejects Hobbes’s dismal view of the human condition, it would seem that everyone can legitimately claim a right of self-defense.  If others are not willing to recognize my right to defend myself against attacks, I have very little incentive to seek peace with them.

     Indeed, I am inclined to think that we have at least a prima facie duty to defend ourselves.  To allow evil when there is something we can do about it, even evil done to ourselves, is morally questionable.  Peaceful resistance may, in particular cases, be tactically or strategically superior to a violent response, but it is not necessarily morally superior.  And despite all the prattle from preachers and progressives, simply standing together won’t stop those who are quite willing to resort to violence, and love doesn’t always (or, perhaps, even usually) trump hate.

     The clear truth, articulated by the protest leaders themselves, is this:  whoever threw the first punch in Charlottesville, it was the Nazis and white supremacists who initiated the violence.  When you march down the street in military garb, carrying shields and weapons (both clubs and firearms), chanting threats, and waving Nazi and Confederate flags, you have already crossed the line from expression to violence.  The leaders of the right wing protest in Charlottesville may insist that they were simply there to bring up ideas and provoke discussion, but this is entirely disingenuous.  They were clearly prepared for violence, and they behaved in ways calculated to incite it.  

     In legal terms, there is at least a prima facie case that the leaders, and perhaps the participants, are guilty of assault.  Contrary to popular understanding, an assault does not always require any sort of physical contact; threats or other behavior that puts a reasonable person in fear for their life or safety can be an assault.  Everyone knows what the flags and the chants mean.  Everyone knows what the Nazis and white supremacists want.  Any reasonable person would be afraid.  And some reasonable persons might well decide that the only way to protect themselves against this threat is to meet violence with violence.

     There are many reasons why one might not respond violently, apart from any commitment to nonviolence.  The law of assault varies from state to state, and, in any case, the law is not likely to accept claims of self-defense if the person making them threw the first punch.  Nonviolent resistance might be more politically efficacious in the short or long term.  The bastards might have you outnumbered, or outgunned.  And so on.  

     But it is not at all clear that non-violence is morally superior to violence in the current situation.  To return to Hobbes, the Nazis and the white supremacists have made it quite clear that they do not wish to seek peace.  They have, in fact, made it quite clear that they wish to make life nasty, poor, solitary, brutish, and short for a great many people.  We are at war with them, whether or not the shooting has started.  In war, morality inevitably becomes more complex and more elastic.

     It behooves us all to reflect on this matter.  Those of us who live in cities, or frequent college and university campuses, are quite likely to be faced with the choice of how to respond to Nazis and white supremacists in the near future, if we haven’t already.

     Meanwhile, here is some information about Nazis that you might find useful in making this decision.