The end result of the right-wing violence movement

Let’s talk about the “violence movement” on the right. Let’s assume that they truly believe everything they’re saying about the government taking over their lives. It’s not true, of course, but let’s run with their assumptions for a minute.

Conservative blogs are running the violence angle. Hardcore blogs like Conservative Yankee are suggesting "[H]ave a swing" at "your Congressman". CY owner Bob Owens says “Jackasses" who call health care a right "deserve to be drawn and quartered."

His blog comes within a hair’s breadth of advocating treason: “I have some hope that the courts will respond favorably to the many states suing to eradicate this unconstitutional scheme… The thought of the morally-required alternative is almost too much to bear.”

Glenn Beck speaks of “armed insurrection”, “get your gun” and being the conservative equivalent of a Jewish Nazi hunter, a “progressive hunter”.

Erik Erickson asks "At what point do the people ... march down to their state legislator's house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp?"

These people are advocating turning on their fellow American citizens. Not because they’ve been denied the right to vote (they haven’t), not because they’ve been denied the right to petition or assemble (they have legally done both frequently), not because they have been enslaved (they have not, despite their protests, which just show they don’t understand slavery or hyperbole).

They’re proposing turning their fists and their guns on fellow Americans because they lost an election, because there is a black man in office and because they lost a contentious vote in Congress.

What other reasons can there be? George W. Bush was appointed to his first term, not elected, and once in office he stripped away rights with the blessings of conservatives. He eliminated posse comitatus, opening the door to federal troops being used as domestic law enforcement – martial law. He weakened the Great Writ of due process. He allowed the government to spy on its own citizens without a warrant.

They didn’t cry a word of dissent when their rights were truly removed. It’s only now, once they’ve lost a fair vote after a fair election, that they cry oppression.

If they're serious about arming for a revolution (and cutting gas lines, etc...), their only option is to start eliminating their “enemies”. I know it sounds over-the-top and hyperbolic, but they don't need arms to vote. They're obviously talking about going past the political process.

How does this work? History gives us a roadmap for how this usually proceeds.

I’d guess that they first go after the government. Actually, I don't guess. The right-wing blogosphere has openly said it. They'd go after members of Congress who voted yes on health care. Drag them into the street and shoot them. Beating them will do no good, it will only harden resolve. They must be killed. Shot in the street. What happens to spouses and children?

Then what? Kill the President? I’d think they’d have to. If this is really a revolution, the king must die. Be very careful here. If you’ve followed this far, you now stand on the precipice of treason, if you already haven’t crossed it.

Then what? Round up members of the media who disagree with them? Are the Olbermanns and Maddows and Schultzes taken out and shot as well? What about the scholars, intellectuals, professors, artists and poets who disagree?

What about ordinary dissenters from your movement, like me? My dissent from your beliefs is what has led us to this place. You can’t possibly allow beliefs like mine, as dangerous to the nation as they are, to resurface, could you? I must be removed.

If I am to die, will I be given a trial first? On what grounds? I’ve broken no law. I’ve only voted, petitioned, and advocated. Under the Constitution you claim to love, what laws have I broken? If I am to be imprisoned for being a progressive dissenter, do I get a fair trial first? Can you risk my acquittal? Perhaps a military tribunal would be better.

Would they allow free and fair elections? Would a progressive be allowed to run? Would they allow the progressive to actually win, or would a popular progressive be assassinated before they could capture a fair vote? Would the vote just be rigged?

It would now seem that our Patriots have established a puppet government, one comprised of only those they’ve allowed to live. Those that agree with them and will be controlled by the mob. Puppets. Cantor, Boehner, Palin.

What next, you ask?

Then they run the government. What kind of government? I don't know, but what we've seen is not democracy, it's mob rule. Would they adhere to the Constitution? While I'm sure they'll claim otherwise, I’d say no. If they were Constitutionalists they’d have worked the ballot box, not the chambers of their guns.

What we appear to be left with is a totalitarian regime.

I am sure that any Patriot who has read this far is saying “no, no, no, that’s not what we’re about, we’re Constitutionalists’”. The language you’re using, the ideas that the most extreme among you espouse, say otherwise. History has shown us this path, over and over and over. You don’t speak of armed revolution without meaning to seize power, eliminate enemies and install the rules you have been otherwise unable to obtain by free and fair elections.

When you speak of armed revolution, you speak of overthrow. In 1776, it was to remove the rule of a king who had denied Americans the rights of speech, assembly, and petition. A king who had taxed them without letting them vote.

You, however, already have these rights. Your rights have not been abrogated. This Congress and this President were freely and fairly elected. The health care and stimulus votes in Congress were done openly and conducted by established rules.

You’re mad that you have been outvoted.

I know you’ll argue (mostly misquoted) polls. We can argue polls, but regardless, Congress is not bound to govern by polls.

If this totalitarianism that is the logical conclusion of your statements is not what you want, then what is the goal of those statements? What other end do you see?

I hope that some of them will read this and say, “No, you’re wrong, this is not what we want”. Good. I hope so. I have to ask: then what is the point of this talk of armed violence? You have your rights, so what else is it that you want?

Is it to get by force what you couldn’t attain by election? If not, how else do you propose to get what you want? Once you speak of revolution and guns, you have by definition abandoned the electoral process. What else could be the point?

If this is not the end you seek, then tell me – what other end do you see by advocating violent armed revolution against a government that has not violated your rights, that preserved your rights to assemble, petition and vote?

This is madness.