The Corner

No, of Course You Can’t Punch Nazis in the Face

The New York Times asks:

Is it O.K. to punch a Nazi?

That is not a brainteaser or a hypothetical question posed by a magazine on Twitter. It is an actual question bouncing around the internet after an attack on a well-known far-right activist, Richard B. Spencer, in Washington after the inauguration of Donald J. Trump as president on Friday.

I must confess to being surprised that we’re debating this as earnestly as we are, and to being even more alarmed at how many self-described “liberals” are among those answering “yes.” Of course it’s not acceptable to punch non-violent actors in the face. This isn’t a matter of degree. It’s not a question of timing. It’s a matter of foundational Enlightenment principle.

It is uncontroversial to note that violence can be an acceptable response to violence. It is widely accepted, too, that if violence is imminent or guaranteed, some preemptive action can be warranted. But violence can never be an acceptable response to passive ideology. That goes for Richard Spencer as much as for anyone. As far as I can see, the most common “argument” in favor of punching Nazis rests upon some pretty brazen special pleading: To wit, that Nazism is “different” because a) it exists outside our accepted cultural tramlines and b) it has a shocking history when put into practice. But that’s always the argument for the violation of norms, which is precisely why we have those norms in the first instance. To prevent the government from deciding who is permitted to speak and who is “different,” we enjoy the First Amendment. To prevent private citizens from making the same determination, we have laws against assault and battery. In neither provision is there a lacuna-creating asterisk: “* Unless you really dislike them.”

“Different,” by definition is invariably in the eye of the beholder. Do I personally think that Richard Spencer’s views are illiberal and toxic? Yes, I do. Do I think that the ideology he espouses is inimical to the order that I cherish? Yes, I do. Does that give me the right to punch him in the face? No, it damn well does not. You don’t fight for liberalism by abandoning liberalism, and you can’t burnish your “anti-fascist” credentials by appropriating that which you hate. Richard Spencer is an American citizen. He’s as entitled to be as wrong and as destructive and as ugly and as doltish as is anybody else with that privilege.

This is not mere philosophy; it’s practically important, too. Why? Well, because those who would carve out an exception for Spencer and his ilk are, whether they know it or not, opening the door to a suicidal debate as to which ideologies can be deemed sufficiently threatening to lose civilizational protection. I will grant happily that Nazism is incompatible with American liberty. But there are a good many other doctrines that share that honor, among them communism and radical Islam. Does this mean I can punch Angela Davis in the face, or that my doing so would be fine? Should I have been given a free pass and a shrug of the shoulders if I’d clocked Eric Hobsbawm? And how much latitude should we give to individuals to draw up their own lists of Acceptable Punchees? I happen to believe that the half of Democrats who want to ban “hate speech” are enemies of liberty. Can I assault them?

A great test of any free country is how it treats its dissenters. The man who agrees with the majority is in no more need of protection than the man who parrots the talking points of the cultural and political establishment. But the heretic — the man who for better (Martin Luther King) or for worse (Richard Spencer) declines to endorse the tenets of the status quo? That’s the guy who you need to watch. Within the bounds of liberty he may be reviled or championed, ignored or followed, and shunned or emulated. But he should never, ever be punched in the face for his opinion.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

Hillary Ruins the Plan

Editor’s note: Andrew C. McCarthy’s new book is Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency. This is the first in a series of excerpts.  There really was a collusion plot. It really did target our election system. It absolutely sought to usurp our capacity for ... Read More

A Brief History of Election Meddling

Editor’s note: Andrew C. McCarthy’s new book is Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency. This is the second in a series of excerpts. ‘The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.” Thus spoke President Barack Obama just a couple of weeks before ... Read More

The End of Hong Kong as We Know It

The protests in Hong Kong have been going on for more than four months now, and no matter how the current crisis concludes in the coming days or weeks, it will mark the end of Hong Kong as we know it. The protests started in response to an extradition bill that was proposed by the city’s Beijing-backed ... Read More

Another Pop-Culture Christian Loses His Faith

It’s happened again. For the second time in three weeks, a prominent (at least in Evangelical circles) Christian has renounced his faith. In July, it was Josh Harris, a pastor and author of the mega-best-selling purity-culture book I Kissed Dating Goodbye. This month, it’s Hillsong United songwriter and ... Read More

Max Boot’s Dishonesty

Before yesterday, my primary criticism of the Washington Post’s Max Boot was political in nature. As I wrote in a recent book review, I found it regrettable that Boot’s opposition to the president had not prevented him from “succumbing reactively to Trump’s cult of personality, or from making Trump the ... Read More