Submit or Die |:
On its face this argument is kind of breathtaking, because it implicitly assumes that a maniac murdering a bunch of cops is tantamount to “a heavily armed populace” taking action against “a tyrannical government running amok.” That the two are not in the slightest equivalent never seemed to have crossed Joshua Holland’s mind—he seems to be able to draw no meaningful distinction between Dallas last week and Massachusetts in 1775, between Michah Johnson on the one hand and Henry Knox on the other. Can a writer for a popular magazine—even a writer for the Nation—be so terminally clueless?
But maybe this isn’t simply an ahistorical [sic] gaffe: maybe liberals really are incapable of divining the difference between a psychopathic mass shooting and a rebellion against tyranny. Maybe the liberal political impulse has become so degraded that, as far as progressives are concerned, there is no situation—none at all—in which one can ever be justified in rebelling against any authority anywhere, no matter how tyrannical the authority is, no matter how justified the case for rebellion may be. It’s all illicit, all forbidden not merely by statute but by moral law: government is so final an arbiter of morality and rightness that you can’t ever fight it for any reason, under any circumstances.You may find that reading the whole thing is a worthwhile use of your time.
I did. I read both articles.
I found points with which I am inclined to agree in both articles.
However, I think the point made in 'submit or die' (which, again, is not the WHOLE THOUGHT) deserves to be emphasized, bearing in mind that the quoted verb it doesn't address the whole of the HOLLAND article.
It's a complex issue; the opinions will, of necessity, be equally complex.