Below is my column in The Hill on the recent New York Times podcast exploring the justifications for crimes ranging from theft to murder. The podcast with radical Hasan Piker, the New York Times Opinion Culture Editor Nadja Spiegelman, and New Yorker writer Jia Tolentino captured the moral relativism that has taken hold of the left in American society. Reading the manifesto of the accused White House Correspondents Association Dinner shooter Cole Tomas Allen shows the ultimate expression of a society where rage has replaced morality and decency.
Here is the column:
“It is so hard to live ethically in an unethical society.” That lament heard this week from New York Times opinion culture editor Nadja Spiegelman could well be the Democratic Party’s epitaph.
Spiegelman was interviewing two left-wing influencers about how everything from shoplifting to murder may be excusable today in light of the unfairness they see in society.
The podcast, a product of the nation’s newspaper of record, reveled in the moral relativism that has taken over the American left. It featured the ravings of the antisemitic Marxist streamer Hasan Piker, who calmly explained how the murder of United Healthcare executive Brian Thompson was perfectly understandable. His rationalization came from Marxist revolutionary Friedrich Engels, who had called capitalism “social murder.” If capitalists are “social murderers,” then why not kill them? The logic is liberating and lethal for some on the left looking for a license for violence.
Mind you, this same newspaper had once condemned and effectively banned a U.S. senator for writing an op-ed advocating the use of the military to quell violent protests during the summer of George Floyd’s death. The Times even forced out its own opinion editor for having the temerity to publish such an opinion.
But glorifying murder? The suggestion of open hunting season on corporate executives did not appear to shock or repel Spiegelman. After all, we are living in “an unethical society.” She explained that many felt that the murder of Thompson, the father of two, meant that “finally, someone can actually do something about health care.”
Even liberal comedians are practicing a literal version of slapstick. Margaret Cho this week declared that “we need a feral, bloodthirsty, violent Democrat.”
To be fair, Spiegelman did concede that it might seem a bit “scary” for some to start murdering our way to social justice.
She also explained that shoplifting can be justifiable because people are “stealing from Whole Foods — not just for the thrill of it, but out of a feeling of anger and moral justification.”
New Yorker writer Jia Tolentino also contributed to the podcast, titled “The Rich Don’t Play by the Rules. So Why Should I?” She immediately threw in her own experience with “microlooting” and explained why it is arguably moral: “I have, under very specific circumstances. I will say, I think that stealing from a big-box store [isn’t] significant as a moral wrong, nor is it significant in any way as protest.”
She detailed her own past thefts and added, “I didn’t feel bad about it at all, in part because the store was a corporation. And it certainly felt, in a utilitarian sense, I was like, this is not a big deal. Right, guys?”
Not in the confines of the New York Times, where apparently you are entitled to all goods that are fit to pilfer.
The bizarre exchange highlighted the moral chasm that is opening its maw on today’s political left. In my book “Rage and the Republic,” I write about how rage helps people excuse any offense or attack. It dismisses the humanity of others and provides a license to hate completely and without reservation.
It is not really murder or theft if there are no real humans on the other side, is it?
Other columnists have defended such property crimes. Washington Post writer Maura Judkis ran a column mocking shoplifting stories as the “moral panic” of a nation built on “stolen land.” It is reminiscent of those who excused rioting in past summers “as an expression of power” and demanded that the media refer to looters as “protesters.”
Former New York Times writer (and now Howard University Journalism Professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones went so far as to call on journalists not to cover shoplifting crimes.
At its core, it is a denial of transcendent values and rights. It is a decoupling of our society from a grounding in moral or universal truths. It is a trend that extends not only to attacks on individuals but also to attacks on our constitutional system. There is a growing denial of our founding based on Enlightenment principles of natural rights, which come not from government but from God.
Some people seem to have forgotten this. In 2024, a celebrated political journalist memorably asserted that belief in God-given rights is a form of “Christian nationalism” — an odd claim about a concept the nation’s founders literally wrote into our Declaration of Independence.
Last year, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) — a man who represents Thomas Jefferson’s own state — attacked a witness in committee for espousing Jefferson’s immortal assertion that human beings’ natural rights are endowed by their Creator. Kaine disparaged this idea as something worthy of Iran’s mullahs.
The result is the type of moral free-fall and rejection of personal responsibility expressed on the New York Times podcast. Simply because they condemn our entire age as unethical, they feel justified in asserting a moral right to commit any offense, from microlooting to murder. This underpins the increasingly frequent justifications made for attacks against conservatives or law enforcement as a form of “defending democracy.”
Yet the feeling of “anger and moral justification” does not make an act moral. It is the morality of mayhem; a spreading decay within our society. History has shown us how democracies can become mobocracies.
During the French Revolution, journalist Jacques Mallet du Pan observed that “like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children.” The sad fact is, it is not just the danger of fellow revolutionaries deciding that you are the next reactionary to be guillotined. It is the self-consumption of radicals who untether themselves from any higher order or purpose. It is the knowledge that all mortals carry the Saturn gene; all mortals share the capacity to become monsters.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Dear Mr. Turley, It is amazing to me on how the Left keeps coining new words to cover their hatred. Now with their attempt to steal from anyone they believe does not deserve what they have honestly worked for, the new word is: “micro looting”. It is the same as stealing. I am not sure why we keep giving Mr. Piker a platform. The more we keep feeding this beast, the larger he will continue to grow.
“Moral relativism?” The Left exists in a nihilistic moral vacuum.
What to do when half the nation votes for insanity and the other half is disappointed when it thought it won?
Disgusting.
Americans should consider “Ranked-Choice Open Primary Elections”. States that use closed-primary elections elect the most extreme candidates from both parties.
When these extreme candidates get to the general election, voters are many times forced to vote for the lesser of the 2 evils instead of voting for what they want.
In the Ranked-Choice system, the winning candidate must receive more than 50% of the votes from Republicans, Democrats and Independents. Every voter can (if they want to) vote for multiple candidates of any party ranking their most favorite to least favorite.
America has real problems to solve and we need candidates that represent us, not extremist right or left.
Why not simply approval voting? Make a mark next to anyone you approve. You can make a negative vote by voting for all but one. No need to “rank”. Ranked choice is for geeks. It adds too much complexity for ordinary voters and might cause them not to get around to it.
Well done, PT.
shout out to pbinca and Olly…
The cold waters of vice eventually become warm and unnoticed by the swimmers.
Too much piss in the pool
The gathering of chain of command and secretary cabinet members in one room was NOT a wise choice.
Instead of a lone wolf, Iran would like to pay back Trump for wiping out its leadership.
Something more sophisticated than the 9/11 hijackers from Saudi Arabia. Using a simultaneous ground and air attacks.
Strange, that so recently having taken advantage of that behavior in by the Iranian leadership, our “leaders” would make the same foolish move.
They feel immune from consequences both legal and otherwise.
Not a good outlook for “of, by, and for.”
Yeah, just toss in a few grenades. The dais table was arranged as the last supper fyi, reminiscent of the French opening Olympic games. The gunman didn’t work alone.
As to moral relativism, this man was already born a murderer and just looking for a place to practice the vice. It’s been hard work by media to produce such freedom in the US where no vice goes unoracticed.
That poor player strutting with sound and fury signifying nothing but exposed his own endowed murderous soul.
A common criminal…
The right helped in the effort, long guns, my gawd… are pistols short guns?
Good article PT
^^^ Simply, prisons are filled with murderers. This fellow wanted an excuse. It’s vices as demons. I can steal the woman said and feel nothing. She was endowed as a thief.
Nature’s creator has fanged wolves. Nature’s creator has cholera. They evolved in this world and not in others. Reason says to take precautions.
The precautions are the work of morality. It isn’t foolproof because there is accident. There’s insurance. 😂.
Why DJT? He’s no worse nor better . Why is he the scapegoat?
Voters of both parties simply want their representatives to support their children’s longterm interests with the U.S. Constitution. Both parties have lost elections over this simple American value.
On the Republican side check out the documentary “Deep in the Pockets of Texas” that even Republicans hate.
On the Democrat side, in West Virginia instead of a democratic “bottom-up” representation, party leaders essentially pushed out Senator Joe Manchin. What did the Democrats achieve by this undemocratic “top-down” approach, they lost a U.S. Senate seat, now a Republican is in Manchin’s seat.
It’s not rocket science – represent the local voting district!
Re; “the moral relativism that has taken hold of the left in American society.” Moral relativism. A sanitized term for moral and ethical turpitude. In other words…their moral high ground lies deeper than where whale shit lands. When one considers carefully what their new ‘working class hero’ bring to the table in terms of roots and life experience, there are no surprises. ‘Der volk’ of oost WWII Germany jumped on that bannister, willlingly, and happily sliding down to find that it ended in a razor blade.
In this fly-over corner of a True Blue West Coast state, shoplifting is a prosecuted crime.
Period.
For the moment, at least…
There is no reluctance or fear between what public figures on the Right say are their moral values and their public behavior. They desire and live law-abiding lives. Many who value public safety risk their lives for their values. Those on the Left, however, speak of theft and vandalism and violence as moral, but that is where it ends, leaving us confused as to whether their failure to live their moral code is because they’re cowards or frauds.
I wonder what it would take for one of them to change their moral outlook. What theft or other crime against someone would make them rethink their position? Prosecution and jail? Of course that would only happen in areas where they do not go (the fly over states). A conviction would not hurt them in their fields, it might actually be medal worthy.
One last thought, are they pandering to get more attention and raise their status? Afterall, there is no proof that the person stole something from Whole Foods. Pandering seems to be the Democratic Party go to thing.
We are founded on the rule of law. Enough said. If you don’t like this concept, perhaps this is not the nation for you. Enough said.
Jefferson knew when he wrote paragraph 2 of the Declaration that we were always going to have people with different views on God and religion and the Creator. That’s why he also reflected in there that reason alone can lead people to understand where rights come from. And that they come by nature as well. So whether it’s the Creator or nature, anyone that wants to take a position of one or the other has to come to the conclusion that these natural rights exist. That’s the fundamental point. It’s not the source but that they do exist, and they exist and pre-exist government.
Getting in a discussion or argument about whether God exists with people that are hostile to the existence of a Creator is fruitless. The only question that matters is this: Do rights pre-exist government, or don’t they? If you reject divine grounding but still affirm that government cannot legitimately create or destroy fundamental rights, that rights derive from nature or reason, then you’re on constitutional ground. But if you reject natural rights because you reject God, then you’ve joined the ranks of the New York Times podcast authors who see no transcendent limits on what rage and moral justification can excuse.
Your answer to that question determines whether you stand with the Founding or with the microlooting to murder crowd.
“It’s not the source . . .”
You are profoundly mistaken.
The basic premise of an argument is everything. It is the foundation of a logical structure. You want to focus on the upper floors, while ignoring whether that foundation is rooted in reality or in quicksand.
Sam, you completely miss the point. I’m not ignoring foundations. I’m recognizing that Jefferson gave us TWO paths to the same foundation: Creator AND nature’s laws. Both lead to the conclusion that rights pre-exist government.
You can derive the existence of natural rights from reason alone. Jefferson knew that. That’s why the Declaration doesn’t just say Creator. It says the Laws of Nature. Those that believe rights come from a Creator and those that believe they come by reason and nature both arrive at the same constitutional premise: rights exist naturally and pre-exist government.
The fact that you’re so blinded by your anti-Creator ideology won’t allow you to admit that both paths lead to the same place. You’d rather attack divine grounding than affirm what matters: that rights exist independent of government power.
So here’s the bottom line question, Sam: Do we have natural rights that pre-exist government? Period.
Your answer to that question is what determines whether you stand on constitutional ground or with the New York Times crowd justifying theft and murder. Save your rhetoric about mysticism. Just answer the question: Do rights pre-exist government or don’t they?
“Sam, you completely miss the point. I’m not ignoring foundations.”
That’s odd. I quoted your own words:
*It’s not the source* but that they do exist . . .” (emphasis added)
Besides, it’s a shopworn position that I’ve heard a thousand times, one promoted by religious conservatives for some 120 years. And with disastrous results.
Sam, you’re still missing it. When I said it’s not the source, I meant it’s not about winning a theological debate over whether God exists. Jefferson didn’t require theological unanimity. He gave us two foundations that lead to the same place: Creator AND the Laws of Nature.
You can arrive at natural rights through reason alone. Jefferson knew that. The Founders knew that. That’s why the Declaration doesn’t just say Creator. It says nature’s laws. Both paths lead to the conclusion that rights pre-exist government.
You want to make this about religion versus reason. That’s the trap. The constitutional question isn’t whether you believe in God. It’s whether you believe rights exist independent of government power. Period.
You’ve dodged that question twice now. So I’ll ask it a third time: Do rights pre-exist government or don’t they?
If you say yes, whether you arrive there through divine endowment or natural law or pure reason, then you’re on constitutional ground. If you say no, then you’ve joined the New York Times crowd who see no transcendent limits on what rage can justify.
Which is it, Sam? Do rights pre-exist government?
“It’s whether you believe rights exist independent of government power. Period.”
No. That is a completely *derivative* question. The fundamental question in political philosophy is: What is the ultimate foundation of rights?
You can try to intimidate me all you want by repeating ad nauseam your question, which is based on a smuggled premise. I do not allow other people’s irrational premises and questions to be used as a club over my head.
That you wrote this: “that both [mysticism and reason] lead to the same place” merely confirms what I already knew: You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. You don’t know the history of religion vs reason with respect to rights. And you certainly do not know what it means to *construct* a valid argument.
Sam, I think we’re talking past each other, and that’s on both of us. I’m not asking you to defend religion or agree with religious justifications for rights. I understand you have strong views on that, and I’m not trying to change them.
My point is simpler: Jefferson structured the Declaration so people could arrive at natural rights through different paths. Those who believe in a Creator have their foundation. Those who derive rights through reason and nature’s laws have theirs. Both paths lead to the same constitutional premise: rights pre-exist government.
I think you actually believe rights pre-exist government. I think you’re conservative on the Republic and understand why limited government requires that premise. But the religion trigger is preventing you from saying so.
So let me ask it this way: Setting aside the question of whether God exists or whether religious arguments are valid, do you affirm that human beings have rights that government cannot legitimately create or destroy? If yes, then we’re on the same constitutional ground regardless of how we got there. If no, then we have a genuine disagreement about the founding premise.
Which is it?
“Sam, I think we’re talking past each other, and that’s on both of us. “
OLLY, I don’t think Sam intends to engage.
“. . . do you affirm that human beings have rights that government cannot legitimately create or destroy?”
Obviously, yes. Government is not the source of rights. A legitimate government is their protector. And a statist government is the greatest destroyer of rights.
But the fact remains: Limited government has a long chain of philosophic premises and arguments that support it. It is no accident that the concept of limited government came after the Renaissance and and at the tail end of the Enlightenment. And it is no accident that limited government has been eroded, over the last some 120 years, by an anti-Enlightenment culture.
“If yes, then we’re on the same constitutional ground *regardless of how we got there*.” (emphasis added)
But that is where we part company. Jefferson’s error of knowledge aside, it is *how* one gets there that ultimately determines whether the Constitution has a logical foundation, and whether limited government survives.
(Thank you for keeping this 99% civil.)
Sam, you had me at yes. We agree on the essential point: rights pre-exist government. That’s the constitutional ground that matters.
The rest is an important debate about philosophical foundations, and I appreciate your perspective on the Enlightenment versus the anti-Enlightenment culture eroding limited government. Those are real concerns worth exploring.
But for today’s purposes, we’re aligned on what matters most: government doesn’t create rights, it protects them. And when that premise collapses, you get the moral relativism Turley’s documenting in the NYT podcast.
Thank you as well for keeping this civil and for ultimately answering the question.
Sam: “Obviously, yes. Government is not the source of rights.”
I think that might be part of an essentially empty argument.
Rights are legal things and are protected, if at all, by a legal system which implies government.
Government itself is a social and legal thing that is partly constructed by people but also evolves in society.
Laws like those in the Bible or in Hammurabi’s Code are usually restatements of evolved customary rules dressed up as handed down by God to give them greater authority.
Morals are often customs that evolved in increasingly complex societies. But I suspect some morals–and rights–are biological adaptations to complex societies. In other words we domesticated ourselves just as we domesticated dogs, largely by accident.
We may have to give more thought to the nature of morality and law.
Young, I think we’re talking about different things, and clear definitions matter here.
You’re right that positive rights, entitlements like healthcare or education, are legal things created by government. But the constitutional framework is built on negative rights. Life, liberty, property. These are natural things that pre-exist government.
Natural rights don’t require government to provide something. They require government to refrain from action. Don’t kill, don’t imprison without due process, don’t steal. They exist by nature before any legal system exists.
Law doesn’t create natural rights. Law recognizes and protects rights that already exist. The Declaration says we are endowed with rights, and governments are instituted to secure them. Rights come first. Government comes second.
If we lose that distinction and treat all rights as legal constructs that government creates, then government can destroy them at will. That’s not rights. That’s privileges. And that’s exactly the premise that leads to the moral relativism Turley’s documenting.
When you say rights evolved as customs or biological adaptations, you’re describing how societies might recognize natural rights. But recognition isn’t creation. The right to life existed before any law acknowledged it.
Sam got it right. Government is not the source of natural rights. It’s their protector or destroyer.
An excellent discussion by Young, Olly, Sam. I can see the slight differences between each but those differences can be argued and invigorated over time in a limited government. To achieve better clarity and consensus or at least cooperation, without burning down the house we have.
The question is how do we get back to a limited government.
GEB, thank you for that. I think your question turns on definition. What do we mean by “limited government”? Our Constitution is downstream of a philosophy. As Thomas Jefferson laid out in the Declaration, rights pre-exist government. The Constitution is the machinery to secure them. If that premise holds, limited government means government is confined to protecting rights. If it’s rejected, “limited” becomes flexible and expands with whatever outcomes people want.
That’s the disconnect. We’re often not arguing policy. We’re starting from different assumptions. Now layer in the root cause. Not every cause is a root cause. A real one sits upstream and drives multiple outcomes. The primary one here is citizen formation.
Limited government requires citizens capable of self-government. When that weakens, citizens demand more, politicians promise more, and government expands. Those are not separate problems. They are the same problem showing up in different places. So how do we get back without blowing it up?
Two tracks. Make structural fixes at the margins, but rebuild formation upstream. Knowledge, engagement, self-restraint. You don’t need unanimity, but you do need a critical mass operating from that framework.
If we want limited government, we have to produce citizens who no longer demand its expansion.
Olly: “Life, liberty, property. These are natural things that pre-exist government.”
I think I must lean a little in favor of Hobbes on this one.while also agreeing with you.
In truly primitive societies, even among animals, the “life, liberty, property,” “rights” belong to the tough guy. Sometimes in even better organized societies that is true. Look what King Clovis did with the soldier who broke The Vase of Soissons.
On the other hand, I think our innate behavior is shaped in part by our evolved biology. Everyone expects a Lord of the Flies scenario when boys are stranded on an island, but when it really happened they organized themselves into a fairly decent society. That likely was part of the culture they imbibed at home but I suspect it was also partly from evolved behavior, natural selection in a more structured community. Domestication, just as dogs don’t behave as wolves.
Likely at least some of our natural rights truly spring from nature, from genes molded by millennia of selection in organized communities.
Young, leaning a little in favor of Hobbes at this point is like being a little bit pregnant. You either embrace Locke or you embrace Hobbes. There’s no realistic middle ground.
Hobbes gives you absolute sovereignty. Locke gives you limited government constrained by pre-existing rights. Those are mutually exclusive premises.
The legitimacy of our Constitution is sourced from the principles detailed in the Declaration. It’s all Locke and none of Hobbes as the root of that legitimacy. Rights pre-exist government. Government exists to protect them. When it violates them, it loses legitimacy.
You can’t agree with that framework while also leaning toward Hobbes, who says people surrender natural liberty to an absolute sovereign. Pick one.
The Declaration and Constitution are built on Locke. That’s the foundation for limited government. Hobbes leads to tyranny. There’s no middle ground between them.
“The question is how do we get back to a limited government.”
GEB: That is *the* question. (For some reason, there’s no “Reply” option after your comment.)
One critical issue that caused America to go sideways is that there has never been a proper answer to the question: What constitutes the *violation* of a right?
Over decades, sundry welfare activists and government control advocates exploited that breach to argue that everything from a lack of food to minorities not having seats on a board, from foreigners not having medicine to hair dressers not having government permission — they all constitute the violation of someone’s “rights.”
I believe it was the philosopher Palin who cautioned us that strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Podcasts on the right should feature engineers examing how a “socially enlightened” individual might create a device to destroy the NY Times building or Hassan Piker’s abode in the name of social justice for the lies they promulgate. I’m sure they would approve.
Leave it to the Left to describe in detail how they and their ideals are explicitly and implicitly amoral. I hope they keep it up.
I suggest you carry, arm yourselves in the event you find yourself in a situation where you could be faced with an unhinged lunatic who follows this toxic ideology and be ready to put them down fast!
The widespread and growing denial of natural rights that come from God leads to a self centered world view that raises the self above all else often at the expense of others. There is no higher authority than the individual. When morality, ie how we treat others is replaced with the wants, desires, preferences of the self anything can be rationalized. As we have seen, crime can be de-criminalized; the unthinkable can become normalized (the gender reassignment of children). Civility dies, social cohesion disappears along with freedom, prosperity and security. Government becomes the arbiter of what is moral which seems to be the point of it all.
Your “Government becomes the arbiter” is exactly what the liberals want to achieve. They really believe they are the anointed ones on earth who can create wealth, no crime, etc.
“. . . natural rights that come from God . . .”
That mystical notion is a confession that one has no argument for rights — no evidence, no this-worldly facts, no logic, no reason.
Ironically, it is that mystical premise that blasted the door open to the Left’s whimsical view of “rights.”
I wonder when a Democratic leader will stand up and say “STOP!” Fetterman has been the closest, and he is shunned as capitulating.
This anti-honorific thought permeates 202s America: “I (we) can get away with it”.
I’m not going to take sides — it’s ubiquitous — but maybe only 5-10% of us go through life itching to game every situation to advantage. That’s enough to spoil the broth. Psychologists have made it clear that around 4% of individuals in any population come miswired from birth to feel no guilt or shame when manipulating and vexing others — the psychopathic spectrum. 4% in a nation of 340 million is 14 million. Some are serving time in our prisons — they say as many as half those incarcerated — but that would only account for the worst 1 million. Where are the other 13 million? Some are “high performing”, meaning they learned as youth how to mimic empathy, even though it’s just clever acting. The greatest danger to society are high-performing psychopaths who rise to positions of authority and leadership.
The more we “normals” can become aware of this personality type — and see through their screen of performative social conformity — the better we can understand the “moral decline” about us. These personality disorders have been around since humans existed.
If there is an “us vs. them” distinction worth its weight in gold, this one might just be it. Ignoring the subtle psychopaths amongst us keeps a more perfect meritocracy out of reach. Confusing it with political zealotry, or cutthroat business leadership, or aspiring dictator-status is misreading the room.
The rot starts from the top. Character matters. “When you’re a star they let you do it (sexual assault). You can do anything.”
Not surprising, but Turley has to work hard not to include the first felon president in his examples.
“The rot starts from the top” is incorrect. . .it starts at the bottom and moves upward until the “top” capitulates and becomes part of the problem.
The mafia says the the fish rots from the head. The heads being those of university profs who cook this ideology to their students, and, most importantly, to their future teachers that they will send out into the world to indoctrinate and proselytize. It appears that it starts from the bottom, but the ideas are planted in the minds of those at the bottom from k-graduate school. The leaders that we need deal with about this insane notion were, as children on up, totally indoctrinated in these progressive ideas and are more than eager to spread this with the help of armies of the bottom feeders.
Phantom, you’ve got it right. The rot starts at the bottom and moves upward until the top capitulates and becomes part of the problem. That’s the root cause most people miss.
The ceiling of government competence is set by the floor of citizens’ capacity for self-government. The government didn’t get there by themselves. They reflect the character of the people that elected them. Not the other way around. Once in office, they’re going to reflect the people, and then they’re going to keep that cycle going. And then the more influence they have over the people, the more the people have influence over who gets in there, and it just keeps degrading.
You can’t vote your way out of a formation crisis. The cycle only breaks when enough citizens rebuild the capacity for self-governance. Then and only then do they demand and recognize leaders who reflect constitutional principles instead of moral relativism.
Formation matters. You’ve identified where the real work begins.
Tell that to Danny Masterson…
What you on the left fail to provide is this thing called evidence in your continuing onslaught against our benevolent and beloved President Trump. Like Blaisey Ford and E Jean Carroll, testimony rife with sufficient substance and recollection of a 30 year old alleged assault is not evidence, it is he said she said rife with political based bias. The Epstein files are laughable, coded conspiracy theories from a mastermind of deception.
Your BS lies and falsehoods are proving a viable foundation for a strategy of justifying murder by the psychopaths that make up the Democratic Party. I predict there will be a time soon at hand for dealing with this type of thing.
And what manner of “dealing with this type of thing” have you been fantasizing about? Flaying? The rack? Firing squad?
The possibilities are endless in a multicultural society.
Given that the psychopathic Democratic Party makes up approximately fifty percent of the voting population you likely will need to draw from a range of cultures to achieve your goal. Who to start with? Pol Pot? Hitler? Stalin?
So now you’re awakening to the Societal reactants that when unleashed ultimately result in the production of a Hitler, a Mao or a Pol Pot.
Seeing how as of late it is those on the far left Democrat party by their words and now actions, they would be the ones to start it with violence. We have seen it with antifa, the Floyd Summer of Love riots, assassinations of people and attempted assassinations and mass shootings.
Reaction to that kind of violence should be done by LEOs and then those arrested should face a court of law and order. But as we have seen, activists Democrats DA and judges reduce charges to nothing or dismiss the case outright and the criminals are back out in the streets.
Public execution for assassination attempts or politically motivated murder; petty theft a public humiliation display with extraction of a benefit for society, shackled with thief wear while cleaning graffiti from public spaces with a toothbrush would be a good start.
Sexual assault?
You could not be more wrong.
Character starts at home, with parents with a sense of right and wrong. Then some teachers, coaches or other community members can help guide and influence a child’s character. There can be sports figures, or celebrities though now a days it may be hard pressed to find them, namely in Hollywood. Then there are historical figures we can point out. At one time there were many within the media. Not so much anymore. Although Uri Berliner could be one for his courage to point out the bias at NPR.
I think in the past few years we have seen a number of people who turned away from what they were taught and did some heinous crimes like the killing of Charlie Kirk. The assassination of a healthcare CEO. An attempted mass murder at a Republican softball practice. And now three thankfully failed attempted assassination of President Trump. A pattern is emerging of people who have over the past few years or as early as 2016 have become radicalized enough to commit acts of violence and justify it is some really bizarre ways.
Some will say,
“Oh! However did they become so radicalized?”
We all know the answer: MSM, and Democrats. They have been the ones turning up the hate and rage rhetoric. “Trump is literally Hitler!” “All Trump supporters are Nazis!” “ICE is Trumps gestapo!” Then there are the calls to get in their face! Fight in the streets! The number of F-bombs Democrat politicians drop. The calls for violence and that it is justified to “save democracy!!”
The really sick part is there was a time in which everyone would condemn this kind of action. Now, there are some out there calling that Linguinee guy a folk hero.
https://nypost.com/2025/04/13/us-news/taylor-lorenz-defends-luigi-mangione-fangirls-on-cnn-as-a-morally-good-man/
So, now we have impressionable young men and women in public schools, many with their own radicalized teachers, seeing murders getting praised for, well, murder.
Got nothing to do with who is sitting in the Oval Office.
Upstate, you’re getting to formation here, and you’re right that character starts at home with parents who have a sense of right and wrong. Teachers, coaches, community members, all play a role. That’s citizen formation in action.
But here’s where we need to go deeper. You’re right that MSM and Democrats have turned up the hate and rage rhetoric. You’re right that radicalized teachers are praising murderers in public schools. But ask yourself: how did those teachers get there? How did the MSM get captured by people justifying violence? How did we elect politicians who drop F-bombs and call for getting in people’s faces?
The answer is formation failure at the citizen level. We stopped forming citizens capable of self-government. We outsourced that responsibility to institutions, and those institutions got captured by people who reject the founding premise of natural rights and transcendent moral limits.
The cycle works like this. Citizens lose the capacity for self-governance. They elect leaders who reflect that degraded character. Those leaders normalize further moral erosion. Citizens internalize that as acceptable. Next cycle produces even worse leadership. The spiral continues.
Washington warned us in his Farewell Address. Garfield warned us. Reagan warned us. Every hundred years or so we get the same warning: the character of the people determines the character of those elected. We shouldn’t need to wait another 50 years for the next warning.
Formation matters. It’s the root cause beneath all the symptoms you’ve identified.
Calling the Democrats “the party of hate, evil, and satan” – the president tweeting from the Oval Office has no influence on how his followers view half of their fellow citizens? Counts for nothing?
I think that assertion can not be more wrong.
He is not wrong. We have a party who is and had been calling Trump “literally Hitler!” And all his supporters “Nazis!” And supporting abortion up to birth, yeah, that is pretty evil. Open boarders, defending criminal illegals over their victims, praising assassins, celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk etc.
Trump did not do that to the Democrats. Democrats did that all by themselves.
@UpStateFarmer
You just verified my point.
That Democrats did it to themselves?
Correct.
ToBeDetermined and Upstate, if you’re arguing from a party view, you’re missing the upstream formation problem. Fix formation, or the cycle continues regardless of which party wins.
I will attempt to educate myself on “formation”.
ToBeDetermined, here are some sources on formation that I found particularly informative:
George Washington’s Farewell Address (1796):
– Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.
– Virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government
James Garfield (circa 1877):
– Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption
Ronald Reagan (1967):
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same
Yuval Levin, “A Time to Build” (2020):
– They form our habits, our expectations, and ultimately our character
– When we don’t think of our institutions as formative but as performative, they become harder to trust
– Institutions were once molds of character; now platforms for personal brands
– Putting up with other people is central to the kind of citizenship we need
Robert Putnam, “Bowling Alone” (2000):
– Decline in forms of in-person social intercourse undermines active civic engagement
– Social capital is connections among individuals and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness
– Social capital is a key component to building and maintaining democracy
– Civic groups once “founded, educated, and enriched social life
Michael Sandel, “Democracy’s Discontent” (1996):
– Modern liberalism cannot account for the formative role of community
– Freedom requires citizens shaped by shared purposes and practices
– Public life has shifted from forming citizens to protecting individual choice
The pattern: A self-governing republic does not emerge from abstract rights alone. It depends on institutions that form habits, communities that build trust, and a shared moral framework that shapes citizens capable of sustaining liberty.
When formation collapses, you get the cycle we’re in now.
So the left, rather than rejecting Trump, is just emulating him? Nice try.
@pbinca
Spot on. This all goes beyond mere political leanings.
My late ex-wife was one of these: https://openbooksummary.com/book-summary/people-of-the-lie-the-hope-for-healing-human-evil/
Rationalizing murder, riots, and looting, “stealing from Whole Foods,” shoplifting from corporations (“microlooting”).
A moral code is a set of principles used to guide ones choices and actions. That code defines ones basic values. The modern Left rejects such principles (which is a rung lower in hell than mere moral relativism)
Such a code sets the limits and boundaries of what one pursues and of the action one is willing to take. So the question for the radical Left is: Without that basic guide, without fundamental values — how do you know what to pursue (and not pursue)? And what are the limits of the actions you’re willing to take?