Which political party condones the use of violence more ― the Democrat or Republican Party?
Any political party in America which accepts any form of willful violence against anyone to make a political point should be abandoned by any current member to be honest. There is no instance that can be justified on any moral or ethical scale where anyone can attack another person in America or destroy their property and be celebrated as a hero.
But since we live in a time of advanced moral relativism, it is fair to compare the number of times one political party in America has turned a blind eye to the use of violence by anyone on their side of the political spectrum versus the other side and see which party is more supportive of violence to achieve political objectives.
Those on the left will point judgmental fingers at the perpetrators of the January 6, 2021 invasion of the US Capitol. As well they should ― anything that went beyond commonly accepted practices of mass lobbying or peaceful demonstration was wrong and the guilty should be punished after a court trial by serving time in prison.
Democrats turned a blind eye to the BLM riots of 2020, calling them “mostly peaceful” despite news reports staged in front of burning buildings and riotous crowds. Democrats from President Biden on down assert that protestors have the right to gather near the private homes of Supreme Court Justices and essentially try to physically intimidate them into not overturning Roe vs. Wade. Democrats refuse to prosecute criminals for obvious acts of violence such as the California DA who refused to press charges against the man who attacked comedian Dave Chappelle on stage during a performance.
There is not a single prominent Democrat in North Carolina, either elected, a former elected official, newspaper editor or political operative world who has publicly stated that all violent crime committed in the name of “politics” should be punished, including any member of their own Democrat Party constituency.
If an elected Democrat did condemn the violence exhibited by their side, they would be defeated in their next primary and that would be the end of their political career in North Carolina.
The hypocrisy of anyone in public life who accepts violence in the pursuit of a political cause they support cannot be overstated. It can’t be OK in one instance and not in every other. Violence to advance a political point on a public policy issue is wrong in every case. Everyone has to agree to oppose it in every form and instance or else we will continue to have chaos in our streets and neighborhoods.
Remaining a Democrat today while ignoring their party’s obvious acceptance of violence as a political activist tool makes about as much sense as older Democrats I talked with when I was running for Congress as a Republican in 1984 in eastern North Carolina. “I agree with everything you say, young feller” I heard repeatedly. “But I can’t vote for you because you are a Republican!”
“What has that got to do with anything if you agree with the policies I support?” I would retort.
“Well, my daddy was a Democrat; my grandpa was a Democrat and my great grandpappy was a Democrat. I am so old I am not just a yellow-dog Democrat ― I am a mossy-back Democrat! So I reckon I am gonna keep on living and one day die as a Democrat!”
Remaining a Democrat today just because a person thinks it is the same party as in 1968 makes as much sense as those older Southern Democrats did in 1984. The “Peace and Love” Democrat Party doesn’t exist anymore. They are the party that openly supports anarchy and lawlessness without any remorse or embarrassment.
Flee while you can, patriotic Democrats. Don’t remain being part of the Democrat Party unless you will do something to decry its support of violence and destruction publicly for all the world to hear. And then hire a private security guard to protect you, your family and your home and property ― because you are going to need it.