If I were a dedicated Leftist confronted by Steven Crowder, I'd probably want to punch him in the face too. Of course, there's a difference between wanting to do something and actually doing it. If that something is face-punching, there are morals, social conventions, and laws which usually help us suppress the impulse to paste someone we really, really, really don't like. What separates the civilized from the thug is a person's willingness to break with morals, conventions and laws. Particularly the willingness to do so in broad daylight and in full view of (at least) scores of witnesses, many with cameras.
As Althouse asks:
Union thugs… in broad daylight, on camera. Are they stupid… or do they know something about the willingness of the authorities to enforce the law?
The question of intelligence is irrelevant, the question of whether they believe they'll get arrested is somewhat relevant, but the most relevant is the question she doesn't ask: do they think this tactic will be effective? That question is answered by Bob Belvedere:
At some point, however, the Leftist Masterminds need to move to the next phase of the march to Revolution: violence. We have entered that phase in the last few years in The United States Of America. Barack Hussein Obama and his comrades have encouraged and nurtured and unleashed forces designed to tear this country apart.
To bring about the violence of this next phase, the Masterminds need their assault troops to disrupt peaceful assemblies and physically attack opponents of the Leftists seeking to implement the Revolution. In Russia in 1917, in France in the late 18th Century, in Germany in the early 1930′s, in China in the mid-20th Century, and now in America in the early years of the 21st Century, the Left has turned to thugs to be their storm troops. Members of unions controlled by Communists and Socialists, such as SEIU and the AFL/CIO, are being used as a modern version of the Sturmabteilung [better known to us as the 'SA'].
IOW, it has worked in the past and they have no reason to believe it won't work now. Terrorism, when used against a public which has no faith that their leaders will prosecute it (everyone who thinks this guy will be arrested and prosecuted, please raise your hand), is often very effective.
If the ideological polarities of the individuals involved in the Crowder Incident were reversed, you can be certain that there would be a rush, from both sides, to identify the violent perpetrator. The Right may occassionally drag its heels, but it is inevitably obliged, usually from internal and external pressure, to do the Right Thing. The Left, OTOH, feels no such obligation and, quite to the contrary, often shows that it feels obliged to justify or dismiss violence perpetrated in its name. Right now, we're seeing the standard cards being played: from "he was asking for it" to the KosKids trying to call shenanigans. Or, as RSM calls it and Patterico elaborates: ACCUSE THE ACCUSERS. I just call it "serial lying". If they lie enough times, they will either get the media to simply repeat the lie or at least get the media to report that there are two morally equivalent sides to the story to one guy sucker-punching another guy.
My favorite justification by far is the Left's inevtiable tu toque argument using the TEA Party:
@scrowder got popped good at the MI Prounion rally!It's almost like he was a Black guy at a Tea Party rally, which he ignored. #karmabitch
— Chas Hoard (@ChasHoard) December 12, 2012
He is, of course, referring to the incident where TEA Party protesters were accused of spitting upon and hurling racist epithets at member of the Congressional Black Caucus. An accusation for which no one ever produced even the smallest shred of verifiable proof. In fact, no one has ever been able to produce any evidence demonstrating inherent racism or any other type of extremism (beyond fiscal responsibility) within the TEA Party, yet the stigma exists and the accusations are repeated over and over again within the mainstream media.
This is why union thugs know they can intimidate people with violence and get away with it.
[UPDATE]
A caveat from Insty:
MARK STEYN’S GOT IT ALL WRONG: Michigan Unions Managed to Get Core Message Out Yesterday …(Don’t Cross Us or We’ll Smash Your Mouth). Yeah, but so fucking what?
Look, what they did to Crowder was wrong, and revealing. But they lost. And despite all the effort by the press to protect them, they’re losing the PR battle afterward, too. And they’re a bunch of fat old men.
When I worked as a summer associate after my first year in law school, I worked at a Birmingham law firm where the top labor partner was famous for having carried an axe handle while crossing a picket line to meet with clients. He would have made mincemeat of these guys. We’re witnessing the labor movement in its dissolution, not its strength. Don’t be misled.
And something for @ChasHoard:
@nolanfinleydn Min after union thugs tore down tent, assaulted several ppl. & yelling N*gger & Uncle Tom at man below twitter.com/NicolaHawatmeh…
— Nick Hawatmeh (@NicolaHawatmeh) December 12, 2012
Yeah, TEA Party protesters who obey the law and clean up after themselves at their rallies are exactly like this, if not worse.
jefferson101 on December 13, 2012 at 7:15 pm said:
Why I don't attend demonstrations.
If I'm confronted and attacked by a bunch of thugs like that, things are not going to come out well for several of them. Given that most Law Enforcement in a lot of places is basically on their side, it probably wouldn't come out well for me, either.
Be that as it may, until we need our own thugs, I'm staying home, because I do not and will not take such things lightly. If you get me out there, it's going to be to convince the thugs that they should have stayed home.
Starless on December 14, 2012 at 5:42 am said:
until we need our own thugs
Which will likely be never. I can't recall any time in my entire lifetime when conservatives have ever deployed thugs at demonstrations. "Direct action" is SOP for the Leftist, not the American conservative.
jefferson101 on December 14, 2012 at 10:43 am said:
In a couple of days, we'll be coming up on the anniversary of a slightly significant gathering of Tea Partiers. While that event was a day or so before my time, I do have to note that there may have been some behavior involved that some folks might describe as a bit thuggish.
The fact that we haven't used any recently could be noted. I leave the question of whether or not that relates to the inability of conservatives to make any significant progress in stopping the decline of this country as a Constitutional Republic as a subject for futher debate.
Never is an awfully long time. I wish I was equally sure that it won't come to that.
Starless on December 14, 2012 at 1:22 pm said:
Yes, "never" was too strong a word. My point is that I don't think that, as we stand now, thuggery is a means to greater individual liberty and the rule of law. Now, if union goons start showing up at TEA Party rallies with clubs, then the rules will have changed.
jefferson101 on December 14, 2012 at 6:30 pm said:
How different from your example of "Union goons showing up at TEA party rallies with clubs" is what happened to Crowder, or to Andrew Brietbart in Nevada? Or at various other places, that the media declined to report?
Note that I'm not suggesting that the MSM will report it honestly, but if they want to dance, they need to learn that the Piper will demand a fee. My first line of defense would be a group of late teen to 20-something young women, with nasty pepper spray. But my second line would consist of mean old guys like me. If you are willing to pick on the little girls, I have something for you, and you can keep it.
Whatever. I'm not optimistic about our chances on succeeding at best, but we'd better not be willing to let the goons intimidate us. If they goon us, we know where they live, and they will be as terrorized as anyone else. That sucks, but it's the only way you can win.
If you aren't willing to hurt the folks who put the hurt on you, you will lose. And that's a fact.
We best start keeping lists, because you know that they are.
YMMV, but that's how I see it. If they want a war, it will begin, sooner or later. You pick the time, but you also get to pick whether it's on your ground or theirs. I'll take it on mine, actually.
I don't want to have that sort of issue, but should it become necessary? (And it may be getting there.) "I know what course others may take, but for me? Give me Liberty, or give me death."
And we have four more years of the crap. Pick a direction and jump, or go get under your bed and give up. It's your call.
Starless on December 15, 2012 at 7:40 am said:
The difference is one of where real power, and character, lies. As I noted above from Insty: the legislation passed and the union goons lost in a very real way. Tony Whatshisname showed impotent rage by physically going after Crowder and Crowder showed power and character by not succumbing to impulse and returning the favor. No matter how they try to spin it — as a "false flag operation" or "selective editing" or that Crowder is a "pussy" for not hitting back — it's evident that what happened is that a bunch of bullies, and one in particular, resorted to violence as a means of achieving their political ends against people who were peacefully — that is to say: with no clear violent intent — participating in the political process.
The only thing the union goons won from their actions was some "attaboys" from people who already support them, whereas the RTW supporters won everything, both the legislative battle and the moral battle.
I don't consider myself a pacifist and if union goons start showing up at rallies to beat up women, I have no problem with pounding them into submission, but political rallies are street theater and if a 30-something guy goes Hulk on a middle-aged idiot who probably has a heart condition, even if the idiot was the one spoiling for a fight, the 30-something guy will be cast as the villain. If men with clubs had emerged from under the AFP tent to do battle with the union goons, then the story really would have been one of moral equivalency. If we get to the point where we feel the need to turn to other than nonviolent means to achieve political ends, then we would have already lost.
I really do sympathize with what you're saying, but politics-through-violent intimidation is the other guy's gig and if we get to the point where it's acceptable to show up at a political demonstration anticipating a street brawl, TEA Party gatherings will start to take on the squalor and lawlessness of an Occupy camp.
Starless on December 16, 2012 at 7:41 am said:
FTR, I would not be against sending goons up against these particular protesters.