James Taranto in his regular Wall Street Journal “Best of the Web” column reports on the reaction of the Left to the January 8th Tucson shootings at which Representative Gabby Giffords along with 18 others were shot in a supermarket parking lot. (See “Violent Fantasy Goes Mainstream on the Left,” WSJ online, Jan. 10, 2011.) Six people died. The alleged shooter has been identified as Jared Lee Loughner. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, much of the reaction of the Left, instead of focusing on any knowledge of the alleged shooter’s motivation and background, jumped to claims that Loughner was the puppet of conservative influence, including the fact that former Governor Sarah Palin’s PAC displays posters showing “cross-hairs” on Democrat-held congressional districts vulnerable to flipping. As Taranto notes, such “quick to judge” reaction is not only premature but neglects the Left’s own far more violent rhetoric and actions.

To add my views to the conversation, I submitted a “Letter to the Editor” to the Journal as a Letter, I reproduce directly below.

——————————————————————

As a conservative with a strong libertarian bent favoring a government with limited functions, I find it sadly ironic that, in light of the horrific events in Tucson , the left accuses the right of fomenting violence, given that the left’s entire social control agenda is grounded in the threat of violence.  (See “Violent Fantasy Goes Mainstream on the Left,” Best of the Web by James Taranto, WSJ online, Jan. 10, 2011)  When the left perceives a social ill or believes that some group is deserving of assistance, it inevitably calls for government action that forces everyone to comply with a government “solution,” often including behavior mandates and transfer payments to particular persons or groups that the left deems worthy of someone else’s income.  All of this, in turn, is done under threat of legalized violence — arrest (i.e., men with guns coming to one’s door) and ultimately incarceration –regardless of whether a citizen agrees that the cause is meritorious.  (For example, try refusing to obey some local recycling ordinance or withholding a portion of your taxes because of a transfer payment that you do not agree with.)  By contrast, I am perfectly happy to live peaceably along side those who may disagree with me.  As far as I am concerned, they may voluntarily contribute as much time and money as they like to any cause, and, of course, try to persuade others to join into the effort.  In many cases, I likely would support the cause myself.  But the difference is that I have no desire to impose my beliefs on others or to force others to pay for the implementation of my beliefs by dint of government coercion.  I moreover reject the accusation that limited government conservatives are cold-hearted and, absent government coercion, would callously allow needy people to suffer.  Indeed, according to American Enterprise Institute scholar Arthur Brooks, conservatives, on average, voluntarily give more to charity than those identifying themselves as liberals.  The key here is that it is “voluntarily” given support, not support given under the threat of legalized violence — arrest and incarceration — against those who defy participation.

Theodore A. Gebhard