Violence Works

The most missed object lesson about the Shirley Sherrod business is that in this country, at this time, violence works.

Or more specifically, reactionary violence.

We have seen how the Oklahoma bombing and the suicide attack on a Texas IRS building have, in the end, been adopted as "regrettable but needed," by the reactionaries in Congress. They have been effective rallying points.

The use of borderline armed propaganda last summer during town halls, coupled with implicit and explicit threats of violence, enabled the formation of the reactionary block known as the Tea Party.

The use of, what my father used to call, verbal violence has been established, defined, and implemented as policy of elected political the right (see Newt Gingrich's 1996 GOPAC Memo ), and by the main reactionary media (Fox, Limbaugh, etc).

And it works.  There is no countervailing force from the other side.  There are no armed progressives protesting outside of reactionary political events -- "we reject violence" is the riff you are more likely to here, no militias of our own,  there is no coordinated use of language to counter attack -- hammering home the point, and the reaction to verbal or threatened violence is to 1) wring hands, and 2) duck and cover.

In general, the violence has worked to cow any official progressive leadership.  And behavior that is rewarded is reinforce, that which is not is extinguished.

This time, with Shirley Sherrod, the truth got lucky.

As luck is the residue of design, the rest of us may not be so lucky in the future.  And that being the case, a logic of deterrence and the needs of the republic may require -- at the very least politically -- that both sides are armed.