Glenn Greenwald and Analysis on Political Violence, Reactions, and the Dangers of Reactionary Totalitarianism
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Kim Iversen Reacts to Charlie Kirk Assassination at Utah Valley University Event
37:06
Glenn Greenwald Exposes How Mike Johnson Betrayed Free Speech and Constitutional Principles for Power
13:23
Tucker Carlson Demands Truth About Charlie Kirk's Death and Condemns Foreign Leaders Exploiting His Memory
10:48
Glenn Greenwald and Analysis on Political Violence, Reactions, and the Dangers of Reactionary Totalitarianism
Glenn Greenwald examines the public response to political violence and the dangerous precedents being set by both sides of the political spectrum. From those justifying violence based on political beliefs to right-wing calls for sweeping crackdowns on entire political factions, Greenwald warns against the impulses that erode civil liberties. Drawing parallels to post-9/11 overreach and COINTELPRO abuses, this analysis challenges Americans to maintain narrow standards for justified violence and resist the totalitarian temptations that exploit tragedy for political gain.
The Dangerous Game of Justifying Political Violence
Glenn Greenwald addresses the vile responses circulating in the wake of political violence, warning Americans about the dangerous precedent of justifying murder based on political views. The discussion centers on how taking just a tiny sliver of someone's existence - their political views - and using that to justify or applaud their death represents a treacherous path for any society.
Greenwald calls out the evil of celebrating or rationalizing violence against political figures, regardless of how strongly one disagrees with their positions. He emphasizes that open discourse and debate, even when differences are vehement and strongly felt, remains the only legitimate way to resolve political disagreements in a free society.
Media Figures Blame the Victim
Perhaps most disturbing were comments from media personalities essentially blaming the victim for violence committed against them. An MSNBC segment featured Matthew Dowd suggesting that someone who is divisive and pushes what he calls "hate speech" creates an environment where "hateful thoughts lead to hateful words which then lead to hateful actions."
This type of rhetoric, delivered without any knowledge of the shooter's motives or ideology, reveals what Greenwald describes as a "dark soul." The implication that certain political speech justifies violence against the speaker represents a fundamental rejection of First Amendment principles and democratic norms.
Many responses focused on pro-Israel positions and support for Israeli military actions in Gaza as somehow justifying violence. Greenwald acknowledges his own disagreements on these issues but firmly rejects the notion that political advocacy - no matter how misguided - justifies assassination or murder.
The Slippery Slope of Political Justifications
Greenwald tackles the argument that supporting certain government policies, particularly regarding conflicts like Gaza, somehow makes someone a legitimate target for violence. He draws a critical distinction: political advocates and commentators are not heads of state, military commanders, or soldiers carrying out orders. They are citizens exercising their right to political speech.
The danger of expanding justifications for political violence becomes clear when you consider that by such standards, roughly 40% of Americans might "deserve" violence because of their beliefs on controversial issues like transgender policies, foreign wars, or other hot-button topics. Once you start down that road, there is no logical stopping point.
Greenwald emphasizes the human cost beyond the political figure themselves - families destroyed, children robbed of parents, lives cut short before they've fully formed. He notes that many prominent figures, including Tucker Carlson, held dramatically different political views at age 31 than they do now. People evolve, learn, and change - but assassination eliminates any possibility of that growth.
Right-Wing Calls for Totalitarian Crackdowns
Equally troubling to Greenwald are the reactionary responses from some on the right calling for sweeping government crackdowns on entire political factions. Christopher Rufo invoked J. Edgar Hoover's COINTELPRO operations, calling for infiltration, disruption, arrests, and incarceration of those "responsible for this chaos" - painting with an impossibly broad brush that implicates entire ideological movements.
This represents a dangerous amnesia about the abuses of COINTELPRO, which targeted civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr., anti-war activists, and various political groups. The FBI's surveillance and harassment operations, including attempts to convince King to commit suicide, stand as a dark chapter in American history that should never be repeated.
Laura Loomer's call to "shut down, defund, and prosecute every single leftist organization" and declaration that "the left is a national security threat" exemplifies the totalitarian impulse that tragedy can unleash. Such rhetoric seeks to criminalize entire political movements and establish a one-party state apparatus.
The Lessons of 9/11 and Historical Overreach
The analysis draws important parallels to post-9/11 America, when emotional responses to tragedy led to the Patriot Act, mass surveillance, TSA searches that routinely violate Fourth Amendment protections, FISA courts that bypass due process, and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. These sweeping changes to American law and governance were sold as necessary responses to terrorism but ultimately curtailed the civil liberties of all Americans.
The same pattern emerges whenever crisis strikes: Ruby Ridge, Waco, January 6th prosecutions, COVID-era restrictions on religious gatherings and businesses. Each time, government power expands under emergency pretexts, and those powers are never voluntarily relinquished. Worse, they eventually get weaponized against the very groups that initially supported them once political power changes hands.
The conservative movement spent years decrying the politicization of the FBI and deep state interference in domestic politics. The irony of now calling for those same institutions to be weaponized against political opponents should not be lost on anyone paying attention.
Why Political Assassinations Backfire
History demonstrates that political assassinations typically backfire on those who carry them out or celebrate them. Julius Caesar's assassination by senators hoping to restore the Roman Republic instead triggered civil war and led to Augustus taking even more power than Caesar had held. John Wilkes Booth's assassination of Abraham Lincoln, rather than striking a blow against tyranny, created a martyr and elevated Lincoln to near-religious status in American civil religion.
These examples illustrate that violence against political figures rarely achieves its intended goals. Instead, it often strengthens the movements those figures represented, creates martyrs whose legacies become untouchable, and provides justification for the very authoritarian responses that erode freedom for everyone.
Maintaining Narrow Standards for Justified Violence
Greenwald argues for maintaining extremely narrow standards for when political violence might be justified - essentially limiting it to defense against immediate physical threats or genuine tyrannical government action. Expanding those standards to include people with disagreeable political views, no matter how strongly held those disagreements might be, opens the door to endless cycles of violence and retaliation.
The standard cannot be that people whose political advocacy you find morally reprehensible deserve death. By that measure, virtually everyone becomes a potential target depending on who's making the judgment. Such a standard makes civil society impossible and guarantees perpetual conflict.
All humans are products of their social and cultural influences, shaped by propaganda and the particular information environments they inhabit. While some public figures may merit strong condemnation for their actions and advocacy, the number who actually deserve violent death is vanishingly small - essentially limited to those actively engaged in violence themselves.
The Path Forward
The message ultimately calls for Americans to resist their worst impulses in moments of tragedy and political violence. Rather than seeking vengeance against entire political movements, rather than justifying violence based on political disagreements, and rather than abandoning constitutional protections in pursuit of security, citizens must recommit to the principles that make free society possible.
That means protecting free speech even for those whose views you find abhorrent. It means maintaining due process protections even for your political enemies. It means rejecting calls for political repression regardless of which party holds power. And it means recognizing that the tools of state oppression you build today will eventually be turned against you tomorrow.
The alternative - embracing reactionary totalitarianism from either the right or left - leads only to escalating cycles of violence, eroding freedoms, and the ultimate destruction of the democratic republic. As painful as it may be in moments of tragedy, maintaining principles matters more than satisfying the immediate desire for retribution.
