So it finally happened. Some wingnut with a weapon winged the wigged ear of a presidential candidate.
It’s amazing this didn’t take place sooner. Or that Biden was not the one shot at. Such rigors had not occurred since 1981, when someone took a potshot at Ronald Reagan. But history repeats itself.
But really, the political climate is much the same in present day as it was 44 years ago. Just the faces that are endangered have changed.
Let’s have at it. 1980s and now. A polarizing leader and/or opposition, who has run up high budget deficits, charisma over character, fear-mongering (and warmongering) versus pacifism (if you look closely), extremely divergent views of what is morality and ethics, an overall lack of (perceived?) morality in the culture, and as was in the 1960s, musicians were about the only ones out there preaching justice.
Not to digress further but … Heavy metal and the like, with their lyrically poignant themes, was heavily on the rise — at one point playing a concert in front of 1.6 million people in Russia and Mr. Gorbachev — and it’s on the re-rise now, and it was as if Ronald Reagan had given birth to the metal genre. (For all his pontification, it was under his command that this fine country sponsored at least one torture school, applied largely to poor farmers and pious nuns in central America, all in the name of fighting an overtrumped communist threat, and largely, it could be argued, for political gain. And decades later, we still have a prison for our opponents where the conditions are hell, not a hell of a lot better.)
Back in my teens back in the Reagan Era, in a household where politics as usual weren’t really followed, there was quite a bit of talk about Carter transitioning into Reagan, and who got a bad rap.
And so we as a country argued about ethics, and continue to argue.
And marginalized groups get violent. And counter-violent? As per the dictates and limits of their philosophies. In our country that is increasingly like the Wild, Wild West in its use of gunfire.
I now, and most prominently, will offer this, as in the mantra of location, location, location. I cite continuum, continuum, continuum …
I am not condoning that anyone shoot a president, or leader in religion or the arts, or what have you. But I think there comes a tipping point, however far afield, where it could be argued that the world, or at least the majority of its members, would be better served if a particular leader were taken from power by whatever means necessary. This is not an advocacy statement, merely one that is boldly philosophical in its pragmatism.
Obviously, such a tipping point would have to find its end practically buried in the ground. This is where the continuum comes in, way at or near its end point. There are (at least a certain few) dictators in this world, and have been for time immortal, that could be said to fit the bill – get the bums outta here. But even that judgment is subjective, so best left alone if at all possible. Do not pre-judge what a leader will do, but maybe their policies will not show to be badly damning until after they play out on the national and world stage. I gotta mention, as one example, Bush and the 2007 fallout of One Of The Greatest Banking Crises To Hit The USA.
But much more telling and flat out dangerous with what’s at stake — what if, in say mid-1930s Germany, a citizen with rooftop rifle who might be thought to be enlightened had a clear shot at Hitler. Should he take it?
Or a more gray area, what if that future leader is someone from the (very) Far Right in Europe?
There is a (rare) exception to every rule. And I am here to say that such exceptions are very few.
With that said, just where is there such a tipping point? And who makes the determination? And what in exact terms are the criteria for such? These are very, very thorny questions … So if it seems I am dancing around the question, that’s why.
Again, on where to place that tipping point, people have varying tolerances, which obviously can be a good thing, or bad in that if we will let them get away with more, the damage is done first and it may be beyond repair. Will Hitler stop with Poland? Would Russia in the 1980s stop its expansionism in the height of the Cold War? Will Putin stop with the Ukraine?
Various philosophies have offered guidance on how much we would take – and they too pad their suggestions with utmost caution.
In the end, maybe all of this needs to be left to the infinite, and inevitable, but only eventual triumph of the marketplace of ideas, that truth will after all prevail.
But the very threat should guide leaders who think to get too greedy. And we must thank God for Biden exercising as much restrain as possible right now, and urging profound calm. He must know deep in the back of his mind that for sheer political expediency, nothing could have been better for him than for the shooter to be better at his craft.
But there are better thinkers out there than I, and here is a sample of what they offer.
Turn the other cheek, main guideline. And in any distribution of justice, the punishment must fit the crime, and not be any harsher. That’s where we get the meaning behind “an eye for an eye …”
Then in a philosophy that’s at a counterpoint to that in the Bible. If someone wrongs you and will not repent, give them every chance, in a one last chance, to make amends, and if not you are said to have an ethical right and yes even responsibility, to dispatch them, presumably to take them out of the gene pool. That comes from Satanism, in the main way it is practiced.
So both sides have weighed in, and many in-between, which in itself shows that it’s a vital issue, and neither says to just go out and shoot straight at someone who has allegedly done you wrong.
Deep Purple singeth, “See the blind man, shooting at the world … Wait for the ricochet.”
So what to do? How about this as an approach: When a leader is deemed to have simply gone too far, take away legislatively the executive functions that allow him or her to proceed unfettered. For this to be done at the ballot box may not be too practical, sorry to say, but this is where the added checks and balances of the Supreme Court come in. Have this body be by election of the people only, so a president cannot basically buy their way into more power by using the judicial branch, and have the requirement for seating this justice be not a simple majority, but a 6-3 margin, to minimize the potential damage of unwise use of the ballot.