The Maelstrom of Violence

[Bob Butler 54]

McVeigh cared about arrogant violent policies of the US Government.  Both the Middle East and domestic incidents helped form him.  The incidents he railed against for the most part occurred before Clinton’s less violent doctrine against domestic potentially violent protestors.  These doctrine changes occurred mostly as a result of Waco, an incident which caused much reconsideration early on in 42’s watch.  Today, Waco and Ruby Ridge are often used in federal training, as illustrations of how not to do it.

The issue of excessive use of force leading to deaths remains pertinent.  It is usually the protesters, state and local forces that are questioned.  While federal forces have a yet lingering reputation, they are not generally escalators these days, in part due to doctrine changes that fell out of Ruby Ridge and Waco.  For the most part, these changes did not trickle down to the state and local level.  Instead we have surplus military equipment being sold cheap to the state and locals, half hearted training in how to use it, a resulting pseudo military attitude shift, plus a legal system that will release any cop who felt threatened by those he confronts.  “I was scared” becomes a legal license to kill.

McVeigh was unique.  Perhaps all the violent lone nuts are unique.  He was more alone than most.  While he associated with the right wing militia movement, he is not a great illustration of big partisan money sponsoring terror, and his tendency toward secrecy doesn’t make him a great example of a joiner sharing guilt with a large movement.

But he’s an illustration of domestic terror and violent dislike of excessive government force.  I would prefer that people not try to cherry pick around him.  Folks shouldn’t say he is a little different so you can throw lessons learned away.  We paid a lot for the lessons learned.

Dave Grossman in his book On Killing explores the notion of human instincts that make folk ready to kill the enemy while still respecting lives within one’s own community.  It’s the violent aspect of tribal thinking.  Those outside the tribe might be worthy of death, while those inside the tribe are to be respected and protected.  Grossman reviews how the US military deliberately indoctrinates people to kill, attempts to neutralize established patterns which hold lives as precious.  Trends include a feeling of guilt leading to post traumatic stress if society does not endorse a soldier’s actions, and how a spiral of rhetoric can enable a spiral of violence.  If a subculture presents violence as necessary and appropriate, an opposition culture as vile and evil, individuals will feel enabled towards violence.

We heard proposed that rich donators might be held responsible for violence that falls out of the causes they sponsor.  In a similar way, we could hold anyone participating in the spiral of rhetoric collectively responsible for the less stable individuals who engage in the spiral of violence.  Ultimately it is the lone nut / patriot / terrorist / freedom fighter who is responsible for his own actions.  This does not imply that those participating in rhetoric or using money as a political tool should be free to throw words and money around without thought and care.