Even as someone who has devoted my life to humanitarian causes and who has founded a progressive grassroots advocacy organization, I find the rejection of violent opposition to be a danger in itself. The bare facts, as horrid as they might be, is that violence is sometimes the only recourse in combatting a larger evil. No, I'm not advocating for or seeking to entice anyone into committing acts of violence, and while I have always championed the peaceful path of resistance, it is a dangerous and inaccurate assessment to deny that violent actions are sometimes the only options left.
The concept of peaceful resolutions to problems that have often evoked brutal violence and blood-soaked battlefields is a grand vision that should compel us toward such objectives, but as human beings, we are nowhere close to making this a reality nor might we ever reach such a state of existence. Democrats love to invoke the idea that violence is appalling and counter-productive, but while these soundbites might make us feel good, they also serve as impediments to necessary discussions and debates about the circumstances that might necessitate a need for aggression to face down an untenable threat. While violence has been, and remains, a knee-jerk reaction that all too many problems incite as a first resort, there are situations where it is not only justified but required. Few, if any, peaceful movements are actually free from violence.
One side might persist in docile resistance, but the oppositional forces these peaceful advocates confront often engage in unsavory acts of brute assault. The civil rights movement is a case in point, and while combative acts of hostilities often erupted from both sides, the extrusion of physical confrontations was unrelenting and mercilessly unleashed from the racist's factions, often by the police seeking to suppress these peaceful demonstrations. Indeed, this is true even today, where the militarization of law enforcement and systemic racism within these institutions continue to resort to aggressive and even lethal means to shutter dissent, no matter how peaceful the demonstrations might be. The shock-value these savage tactics elicit when such incidents play across our television screens and online platforms might repulse the masses on a grand scale, but sadly the outrage of the many has done little to stem the tide of brutality.
While many landmark victories, such as the civil rights movement, were achieved through peaceful campaigns even in the face of violence, these achievements were gained through long-term engagement. Peace might be a far more effective strategy, but the rewards and progression of unimaginable change are always won through sustained movements that span the passage of time, they almost never net many results in the short-term. As such, it's essential to evaluate the severity of a threat and the time constraints to measure the human impact and other detriments of a long-term strategy versus the necessity of immediate resolutions and the merits of risk.
The humanitarian cause is another factor that compels immediate action - a recent example being the crimes against humanity and the global threat of another Nazi regime, like the one that led to the savage slaughter of more than six million humans ruthlessly exterminated by a genocidal cartel working under the authority of a duly elected government. No amount of peaceful resistance or rational engagement were going to prevail at that time, and the human costs were too steep to condone or to tolerate with patience and diplomacy. The atrocities didn't emerge overnight, and one has to wonder what might have occurred had people acted upon the many warning signs that were too often dismissed as political rhetoric or the depraved rants of a madman which nobody considered to be serious threats of the atrocities that would eventually unfold. It's nearly impossible to predict the future, and determining between what is indicative of things to come versus blatant rhetoric is equally challenging, so prudence is warranted when sustained actions unravel with emergent repetitions. The prospect of war is frightening, and it's never easy to send people off to die, especially when victory is never guaranteed, but it's just as untenable to avoid a fight given the potential of what could result if we do nothing.
Moreover, the fact remains that not all violence is equal, motive matters, significantly. There is a more strategic advantage in working through conflicts peacefully, of course, but we must take seriously the threats to public safety, in particular where the most vulnerable are concerned. The most patriotic brood of Trump's ideological fan-base have already proven willing to launch out against the resistance with violent threats, and some willing to back those threats with actual violence. Recently, a man pulled out a gun during a peaceful demonstration against the separation of families at the border, fortunately, the police were able to subdue the suspect before any shots were fired, but to dismiss this as a rare occurrence would be a mistake.
After reporting on a story in the Philadelphia Inquirer about the challenges facing immigrants who lack access to attorneys, journalist Jonathan Lai received a voicemail message from an irate Trump supporter who threatened to shoot immigrants on sight. These are not threats we can ignore or disregard.
While we shouldn't incite violence, neither should we refuse to engage in it when done in defense of lives.