The shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson stunned me. But the general reaction to the shooting absolutely shocked me almost beyond belief. Instead of unequivocal universal condemnation, equivocation seems to be the dominant reaction. The murder is said to have “triggered” a debate on America’s healthcare system, implying that maybe the probable shooter, Luigi Mangione, had on some level a justification or did us a favor by highlighting some flaw in American healthcare. CNBC, which should know better, actually exploited the shooting by airing a segment on healthcare.
I’ve had people say to me things like “I’m not saying it’s right, but I understand his frustration. Our healthcare is out of control.” This is to say, “It’s not right, but it’s right.” In a statement of that sort, the words before the “but” are repudiated by what follows.
This is shocking and sickening to me. And it’s not just regular people. A sitting U.S. Senator, Elizabeth Warren, essentially justified the murder in the same vein, saying “The visceral response from people across this country who feel cheated, ripped off, and threatened by the vile practices of their insurance companies should be a warning to everyone in the health care system. Violence is never the answer, but people can be pushed only so far." Translation: “Violence is not justified, unless you are pushed too far.”
Jonah Goldberg of The Dispatch emphasized what I’m saying in an excellent piece. In Against ‘But …’ Goldberg writes:
There’s an old idea, most recently popularized by Game of Thrones, that says “Everything before the word ‘but’ is bullsh-t.”
“I really like Todd, but … ”
“I don’t believe in censorship, but … ”
“I’m not gay, but … ”
The idea that everything after the “but” is BS in the case of Luigi Mangione is both true and false simultaneously. The people saying, “Murder is wrong but …” feel the need to say the right or responsible thing, but what they really desire is to talk about how the murderer of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thomposon had a point. “Violence is never the answer, but people can be pushed only so far,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren insists. (In fairness, she backtracked, a bit, after people accurately interpreted her statement.)
My point here is that murder is wrong and everything after the “but” is BS. I’m not saying that the complaints about health insurance companies in general or UnitedHealth in particular are entirely untrue or unfounded. I’m saying that the conversation people want to have after the but is appalling and grotesque.
The people who think Brian Thompson had it coming because some people are angry about their health care are in profound moral error. The . . . “murder is wrong, but …” . . . mob whisperers . . . are rationalizing [the] profound moral error.
Here is my Facebook Statement:
Jonah Goldberg is the first public intellectual I have come across who has strongly validated my thoughts regarding the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson by Luigi Mangione (allegedly, I suppose I should say).
The murder—in fact, assassination—of the health insurance CEO has triggered a “debate” on America’s healthcare system. This is utterly shocking! It is an indication of how the morals of America’s culture has sunk. One would think that any debate over some flaw in healthcare would end at the line that (should) separate legitimate debate from cold-blooded violence, especially murder.
It’s not just that some people are celebrating the killing. Those people are obviously monsters. There are always monsters. What’s so shocking is the apparently large number of people who are giving moral support to these cold-blooded monsters by simultaneously condemning the killing and in the same breath qualifying that condemnation with a “but . . .,” such as “but I can understand the frustration” or some variation. These people are effectively condoning the assassination of an innocent hardworking man through equivocation. The “It’s wrong, but . . .” equivocation is essentially saying that killing an individual who symbolizes some flaw in American healthcare is OK under some circumstances. Worse, this line of logic implies an endorsement of the broader idea that assassination can be a legitimate reaction of anyone with a strong enough grievance against any American institution. Equivocators, how do you think some would-be copycat assassin will interpret your “murder is wrong, but …” moral abomination? Likely, as a green light.
The CEO assassination has apparently drawn a bright moral line across America. One side represents the moral good, and the other the moral evil. The good side is where the people who firmly condemn this cold-blooded, premeditated assassination.
The other side—the evil side—is where the monsters who cheer are, obviously. But it’s also the same side where the “It’s wrong, but . . .” equivocators stand. Of these two, the equivocators are the most morally guilty. Why? These are typically otherwise decent people who unwittingly give moral cover to the monsters. Nonetheless, they cannot be excused. Evil thrives when good people give it moral sanction. And sanction for evil is exactly what the equivocators give to the monsters.
We Americans love political, economic, and cultural debates, especially controversial—even rowdy—ones. But there is a line around debate that should NEVER be crossed or even blurred—the line where violence begins.
Count me on the side of moral good. There is no place in America for the politics of assassination. No political or economic grievance justifies it. We have freedom of speech to settle those.
Related Reading:
Elizabeth Warren, CEO-Assassin Cheerleader by Liz Wolfe for Reason
No comments:
Post a Comment