Our Best Stuff From an Extreme Week

Nancy Pelosi’s husband is attacked in their home by an assailant.

By
135
(Photo by Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto/Getty Images.)

Hello and happy Saturday.  It’s a crisp, cool fall day here in Indianapolis, where I’m spending the weekend at our son’s swim meet. By all reports it’s lovely back in the Ohio bureau, too. If the sun is out and the fall color is at its peak where you are, please make sure to take advantage. 

I say that because it seems like many of us could benefit from some fresh air and a walk around the block. Put down the phone, grab the dog’s leash and a jacket, and step outside. [Editor: Should they bring the dog, too? I guess that depends on how much they worry about what the neighbors think.] A little more than a week ahead of the midterms, things are a little too heated in this country. A couple of big stories from the end of the week show just how much.

Elon Musk completed his purchase of Twitter this week, and the reaction on both ends of the political spectrum was extreme. As Nick notes in his Friday newsletter, some of those on the right who were eager for Musk’s acquisition are already pushing the boundary of what might be tolerated, and some on the left are acting like war just broke out. Literally. 

It’s not like we needed another reminder of the real-world danger presented by toxic online discourse, but we got an unfortunate one on Friday when news broke that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul, was attacked in their home by an intruder armed with a hammer. Paul Pelosi, 82, is expected to make a full recovery, but he did require surgery for a skull fracture and suffered other injuries. 

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
135
By
Comments (135)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Bill B

    C’mon, that’s BS. It’s like saying we don’t like beets so we’ll take rat poison.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Rlritt

    Former Secretary of State, former Senator, former 1st Lady, Ivy League education. She was a very qualified candidate. She was just unlikable. Trump was just as bad and lost the popular vote but won the electoral college. In 2020 he lost both.

    Collapse
  3. Tmbaer

    haven't we already established as fact that the Gabbi Giffords shooting had nothing to do with politics? Sarah Palin took the NYT to court over this, and the NYT repented before winning the case. the WaPo is pathetic

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    In tonight's GA governor debate, Republican candidate Kemp refused to commit to signing a bill banning abortion in Georgia.

    This caps a week when I've repeated a theme: that today's politics managed to shock me for the first time in years of watching US politics closely.

    Like world's leading authority on the GOP voting base--Donald Trump--I assumed that the Dobbs decision would hurt Republicans at the polls. The early results from Kansas bolstered that prediction.

    My assumption was that Republicans would finally, after a 40 year-long fight, enact the abortion abolition laws they've supposedly been elected to enact--and that this would hurt them in the November election.

    I've argued with abortion abolitionists for decades, including back when I argued in favor of Republicans holding power, as a now-extinct "pro-choice Republican".

    Or at least I thought they were extinct. Before six ago they were.

    To my amazement, instead of taking the political hit associated with abortion abolition, the GOP just declared itself the second US pro-choice party, throwing out the abortion abolitionists like yesterday's garbage.

    Apparently it was never about "saving babies" from "murder". Apparently the it was only about winning the next election the whole time, and fanatics who think they are going to help stop a daily holocaust in USA are great repeat donors and loyal voters.

    But now they are a political liability, so screw em. (And where are they going to go? Bla bla bla).

    And I know what some of the abortion abolitionists are thinking: it's okay because the GOP is lying for us like they've lied for us in years past. Lies are critical to our success since we're in the deep minority.

    The only problem with this logic is that it's a lie that hurts their cause. Whereas the typical Republican loyal subject would reiterate the logic of "baby murder" six months ago to their would-be converts, they now sing the tune of, "let's just be like Europe", aka pro-choice.

    This is a lie they are telling to themselves. The GOP's capitulation on abortion will absolutely change hearts and minds among Republican voters--in the pro-choice direction.

    So after burning the Supreme Court to the ground and handing their party over to Donald Trump, the abortion abolitionists have succeeded in giving the pro-choice cause the most decisive victory in five decades.

    Dog catches car.

    Wow.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Dusty

      And on the flip side we’re to a point where Pat Riot is now arguing that Heartbeat Bills are “decisive victories” for the pro-choice side.

      Wow indeed.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        Legalized "baby murder", and you are proud of this because it will allow the Republicans to win.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Dusty

          Huh? You're right about me wanting the Republicans to win.

          But your political analysis of this issue is either disingenuous or just completely wrong.

          I see what you're trying to do. Despite the fact that the abolitionist v incrementalist debate has been a debate within the pro-life community forever, and despite the fact that polls from forever have shown a large majority favor nuanced abortion laws and that the abolitionist position has always been a small minority, you're trying to say that the abolitionists are the only true pro-lifers. This way whatever they don't get you get to claim as a victory for you.

          I've long been an incrementalist and favored the Roberts approach for a number of reasons discussed countless times. I still strongly identify as a pro-lifer. And, as predicted, I think the last few months have proven the incrementalist approach to be the right approach.

          As someone who claims to have debated this issue for decades on forums, I would expect you to have a better understanding of how politics work. The GOP is in a position where they have to choose between being intellectually pure on an issue and losing or compromising on an issue in order to be effective.

          This same dynamic is clear to see on any number of other issues. Historically, as KDW pointed out a couple of weeks ago, this very debate (incrementalist v abolitionist) was the exact same debate the anti-slavery coalition had in the 1800s. You can see similar sacrifices in dogmatic positions in order to be more effective with modern Democrats on issues from healthcare to taxes to guns. It's the way politics work. It's the way things get done. It's the way victories are actually won.

          Again, I assume you know this. Hence my suspicion that you're being disingenuous. But maybe you're sincere in trying to find silver linings when those pro-choice Republicans have effectively banned abortion in 13 states and restricted it from where it was in June in a number of other states. I'd argue that the GOP's turn (in some cases) to a more nuanced, incrementalist view isn't a sign of them becoming pro-choice. It's a sign of them adopting pro-life positions that can actually be effective and win small victories, thereby moving the ball downfield for the pro-life side a few yards at the time. And I think this is what you actually fear, because that's a better strategy than launching hail marys on every play.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            The incrementalist approach says that, "it's not really 'baby murder', it's just something I don't like". Before Dobbs, Republicans could gleefully use the most draconian rhetoric they wanted (e.g. women being hanged) because everybody knew they could never do anything about it. Now they have to "moderate" their message, which will absolutely make the country more pro-choice than it was before.

            Democrats do not say that owning a gun is the same as murdering somebody. They do not make people think that all gun owners are monsters who deserve to be hanged for a capital crime as one would do so for anybody who commits murder.

            Despite GOP baloney about the "extreme" Democrats (who want the country exactly as it was six months ago), it is the Republicans who have moderated and the Democrats who haven't moved an inch.

            An "incrementalist approach" assumes your increments will be in the direction you want. But making abortion marginally a bigger pain in the ass to obtain but otherwise not objecting to the principle of it means things will increment in the pro-choice direction.

            It's was too early for Dobbs to hurt Republicans politically this cycle, but it won't be next cycle.

            Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Julie from Texas

    I never miss an "Our Best Stuff." Somehow, the way you describe what's going on, Rachael, speaks so much to what I think and feel. Thank you. (Also, I'm a mom of boys, so there's that. Hang in there! Mine are grown.)

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Mudskipper

    It turns out that Musk's purchase of Twitter and the attack on Pelosi intersect in a weird and rather disturbing way: apparently Musk linked on Twitter to an extreme-right fake-news outlet which falsely claimed that Paul Pelosi was drunk and fighting with a male prostitute. He later deleted his tweet, but not before it had been retweeted by tens of thousands.

    Is it disturbing that the new owner of Twitter has so little judgment about what reliable news sources are? Yeah, I think so.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Rlritt

    "Reaction from the progressives’ own side of the aisle was both swift and harsh, and CPC leader Rep.  Pramila Jayapal withdrew the letter, "

    Well since the majority of the Democrats in Congress have come down against the handful of silly progressives, I'd say McCarthy and the Trump wing (ie all the rest of the Republicans) are safe in supporting their new idol, Putin.

    Collapse
    1. Nickson

      Plus, it was “only” 30 of about 100 progressive caucus members. So not enough for reverse-psychology purposes most likely, yet. But I think there’s a way to play it. I hope Nancy sticks around, because she could figure out how to punk the MAGAs on Ukraine.

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Bill B

    "We’ve written ad nauseam about the toxic state of our discourse, with David particularly focused on the growing problem. It’s hard to know what else to say (though it would be really nice if people could refrain from saying “the other side does it too, only worse”). "

    I'm sympathetic to the desire to not engage in another round of "whataboutisms" and "so's your mother..." type of ideological or partisan recriminations. The difficulty is, of course, we need to identify the origins and sources of the problem to address it and any answer we produce will make some people angry or uncomfortable; it still needs to dealt be with.

    While a number of surveys have indicated that an increasing number of the electorate sees violence as a legitimate tool of politics on the both the Left and Right the puzzle seems to be why in the last 30 years the incidence of acts of violence on the Right seem to predominate. Numerous studies and analyses by law enforcement into the character and incidence of acts of political violence bear the latter observation out. We can't refuse to see it.

    It may be that the Right is simply more homogeneous then the Left making identity and the protection of it a more cohesive and compelling factor in it. Abstracting from incidents of racial unrest which has been sporadic throughout US history and whose origins lie less in ideology than social inequities it bears emphasizing that this is predominantly a right-wing phenomenon in the 21st Century.

    "Fairness means we hold all forms of extremism to the same standards, not that we consider all forms of extremism to be equally dangerous and harmful. The latter will only lead us down the road to false equivalencies of phenomena that are fundamentally different. Jihadism and right-wing extremism are at present simply bigger threats and therefore deserve more attention from researchers and policy makers in the security domain. There has been a lot of left-wing extremist violence in the past, and maybe at some point it will re-emerge, but for now it is by far the lesser of three evils..."

    https://icct.nl/publication/we-need-to-talk-about-left-wing-extremism-or-do-we/

    https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/testimony/the-terrorist-threat-confronting-the-united-states

    https://www.newamerica.org/international-security/reports/terrorism-in-america/what-is-the-threat-to-the-united-states-today/

    https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/03/31/rise-in-political-violence-in-united-states-and-damage-to-our-democracy-pub-87584

    https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states

    https://www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/dark-constant-rage-25-years-of-right-wing-terrorism-in-united-states

    I'm also skeptical about the impulse to dismiss too quickly these behaviors as mental illness and although that may be an element in some of them, i.e., Jacob Chansley vs DuPape vs Dylan Roof vs Timothy McVeigh, the line between ideological fanaticism and mental illness may not always be clear. The Internet has proven to be a transmission belt for extreme messaging by groups that in the past would never have had the national or global platform for it. I think what is clear is that there are quite a few voices and platforms that encourage extremism and prey on suggestible, mentally and/or emotionally fragile people. These voices proliferate on the Internet and in public discourse and may correspond to and depend on what has been called "stochastic terrorism".

    I have little doubt that, given the nature of our discourse, that if we refuse to address the sources of this extremism directly we will begin to see increasing and corresponding acts of left-wing political violence as we saw in the Simpson Park shooting of Republican Congressman Steve Scalise or the threat to conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh. This is a road with no good end if we cannot get a handle on it.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Cheerio

      This is a fantastic post, thank you for the links (well copy & past links). The attacks on Scalise and others at the Congressional baseball game and the man who turned himself in before doing anything to hurt anyone were definitely politically motivated as well as having some kind of mental/emotional issue but I don't believe their actions were encouraged or fostered by internet communities or any kind of movement or website (I don't see a preponderance of weapons discussion as a desirable) Mostly people are encouraged to donate money, canvas, and participate in text/phone campaigns-- ie. work within the current GOTV system. However, I do believe that they felt emboldened by the violent tenor of political rhetoric that is presently accepted and not condemned by leadership. I never liked the ideas of showing up personally to harass/shame people-- I mean, you don't know what kind of person will show up to do that and what parameters of behavior they might feel is acceptable. I would not take that chance. Demonstrating in front of buildings-- like the SC or the WH -- picketing peacefully -yes that is within the tradition of nonviolent protest. But accosting people, threatening them, attempting to intimidate-- that is more along the lines of menacing and harassment.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Bill B

        Thanks. I don't think we get the degree of polarization and violent reaction that we are seeing without the amplification of extreme voices on the Internet. Those extreme voices were once moderated by gatekeepers in the media and institutions and excluded by the political community. Forty years ago Infowars would have been a street-corner pamphlet and Paul Gosar would have been nothing more than an eccentric, local dentist. Now political/ideological extremism is not only easily accessed on the Internet but search engine algorithms drive traffic to it; eventually it even infiltrates main-stream media outlets. As Steve Bannon put it in 2018, “The Democrats don’t matter. The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.”

        That no public figure or outlet explicitly calls for violence does not mean that it is not the implicit message it is sending or encouraging. It simply gives extremists the deniability they need to avoid the legal or professional consequences. As an example, the 2015 Jade Helm conspiracy theory put forth by Alex Jones and leaned into by Texas politicians that caused such a panic may have simply been a cynical political and/or commercial ploy but it helped radicalize forces on the Right and opened up the possibility of armed insurrection. The cumulative effect of these kinds of messages is to encourage in the imagination of the public the possibility of violence. Exaggerate the threat and the response will be exaggerated. Which is why you can now see at ballot drop boxes in Arizona these days armed men in tactical gear and a Trump appointed District Court judge ruled it permissible.

        Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Wilhelm

    I enjoyed the roundup, per usual, Rachael. But a sentence stuck out:

    "Threats of violence aren’t new and aren’t the domain of a single party, but they are increasing."

    Are they increasing? They're certainly increasingly covered in the media. But do we know that the last part of that sentence is true? (Consider this a story pitch)

    Collapse
    1. Joe

      "Threats of violence aren’t new and aren’t the domain of a single party, but they are increasing."

      The devastating part of this comment is that it equates the left with the right. If you won't identify the problem, you will never be able to address it.

      Violence on the left is predominately reactionary. Violence on the right is predominately prepared and planned.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Wilhelm

        Was the shooter at a congressional softball game reactionary?

        Collapse
        1. Joe

          Predominately. Admittedly they are violent people on both sides, but one side foments hate (Nancy Pelosi is evil ...) and has militias ready and standing by. Jan 6 was planned by the president, supporters and militia groups.

          You may dislike the New York Times, NPR and other "liberal" media, but do they foment the hate and vitriol of the conservative media (Fox, Ingraham ..., I used to watch them to learn, but its so nasty and repugnant I stopped)?

          Is it really OK to support conservative media? Is it really OK to support candidates who supplant the hate and vitriol? And who deny election results?

          I guess I need to get off my soapbox, but Republicans built this strategy from Newt Gingrich on and only Republicans can stop it. But it works. Republicans will win next week.

          As with big money donors, the Democrats finally caught up with ActBlue and now we are spending billions every election cycle on messages that aren't worth hearing.

          How long will it be before the libs catch up with the hate and vitriol ? How long before the libs start stocking up on ammunition? We can be like Brazil with a choice of a right wing authoritarian or a left wing authoritarian.

          Or maybe like Haiti where you grab your gun and start a new government. Or, more realistically, like Watts in the 60's.

          I keep hearing Republican pubic condemnation of hate and violence but it is followed by private support for election deniers and support for conservative media. With a few dog whistles thrown in so everyone knows where you really stand.

          Do you see a way out of this?

          Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Cheerio

      You can ask the FBI-- they will tell you --Yes. and it is on the Far Right.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Wilhelm

        I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it has increased on the right. But sometimes when that happens, it decreases on the left. Not that it's a zero sum game, but that what one side sees as progress the other sees as a crisis.
        But maybe both sides are in Flight 93 mode. It would be interesting to know.

        Collapse
  10. Rcroxton

    I have ZERO sympathy for Pelosi. The dems have been cynically donating to the very worst GOP nutjobs' campaigns. So Nancy is at least indirectly guilty of platforming the exact sort of crazy her husband's attacker loved.

    There's no such thing as karma, but if there was it would look a lot like this.
    It also looks a lot like Mike Pence in fear of hanging Jan 6th after refusing on national television to agree to a peaceful transition of power.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      DougAz

      That's a pretty depraved comment

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Bill B

      Well, who's voting for those GOP nutjobs?

      Collapse
      1. Rcroxton

        Independence, or they would never get elected. And that tells you something very important about how bad the Democratic candidates are.

        If your children are boiling their shoe leather and eating it, you can write them off as crazy.... Or you can take a hard look at what you're serving for dinner.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Bill B

          Independents appear to be shifting back and forth. September they were leaning toward Democrats and now they're shifting towards the GOP. We'll see. Democrats underperforming isn't a surprise given thier poor messaging and Progressive's tone-deaf political instincts. I wasn't any happier with thier tactics this election than thier messaging.

          Although rather than blaming Democrats for what's on the menu in Republican households maybe Republicans need to get thier kitchen in order if thier kids have a taste for shoe leather.

          Collapse
          1. Rcroxton

            You're exactly right. Both parties have a golden opportunity to set themselves apart by just not being crazy. Surprisingly, neither seem interested.

            Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Cheerio

      the donating to the weaker candidates during primary seasons as well as to 3rd party candidates is a well-used Republican election strategy and that is just what it is. All of a sudden people are clutching their pearls that the Democrats decided to do it. That in no way endorses violence. Democrats are not voting for those crazy Republican candidates. They did not put MTG, Gosar, Lake etc. on the ballot. They are not the ones filling up rallies where the head of the Republican Party indulges in violent rhetoric and pushing Qanon conspiracy theories and they are not the ones eating it hook, line and sinker and paying him $$ to continue it as well as encouraging his fellow travelers like the felon goon D'Nesh D'Souza and his Stupid Mule Movie. Your post is so much like the abusive spouse--"Look what you made me do."

      Collapse
      1. Rcroxton

        I should assign "Whataboutism is not a defense" to one of the F keys on my keyboard, I swear.

        It's such a soothing logical fallacy though. They did it first, so nothing else matters. It's so relaxing in fact that you literally did what you criticized at the end of your post, and defended the democrats with an essential "look what you made me do."

        The issue with that sufficing, is that's exactly what the Right is thinking this moment. "Oh, look what happened to Kavanaugh - the left went to his house looking to kill him. How is this any different?"

        Politics has become watching a bunch of children scream at each other about who started it. My question is, who is going to STOP it? You're exactly right that the Democrats didn't vote for any of those crazies. They voted for the crazies that justify giving money to insane people with "It's a well-used Republican election strategy." SERIOUSLY? So because some GOP folks in the Nixon era thought it was strategic to donate to the Dem with the worst speech impediment, we are seriously going to sit here like adults and say that justifies trying to get a mentally ill person who thinks Democracy is an inconvenience that needs to be disposed of onto the ballot? "Look what you made me do" indeed!

        Crazy people aren't a toy. One could even go so far as to say no people should be considered toys. I know that isn't where we're at. But I firmly believe that's where we should be trying to go. Maybe the Pelosi attack isn't shocking enough, since people still want to go straight to whataboutism instead of being shocked and wanting to talk about why politics isn't a game and it should stop being approached as if it is - I wonder though, what will that take?

        Collapse
        1. Joe

          Republicans are putting them in office. And only Republicans can keep them out of office.

          Collapse
          1. Rcroxton

            No Joe.
            I don't agree with you 80 million people who thought a tangerine narcissist would make a great president. But I also don't think that the party that didn't have anything better to offer them than a tangerine narcissist is without blame.
            Both sides are broken. A close election win against a crazy person is nothing to be proud of. And if your party can't get a massive win over someone who's clearly unfit? There's something wrong with your party.
            The only reason we live in a Trump world is because Democrats thought Hillary Clinton was a good idea. Read that again, because it's very important. The volleyball from castaway should have been able to beat Trump, and not buy a narrow margin.
            Republicans don't elect anybody, neither do Democrats. Independents elect people. We outnumber both three to one.

            Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Rlritt

      So her 80 year old husband should be killed because Nancy Pelosi is an aggressive Congressional leader. Wow.

      So if the wife of one of the policemen killed in the Jan. 6th attack on the Capitol hit Ivanka with a hammer, that would be cool with you because her father didn't tell the rioters to stand down?

      Collapse
      1. Rcroxton

        Not "should."
        Would it be nicer to live in a world where sociopathic stupidity couldn't result in violence? It absolutely would.
        Do we live in that world? We do not.

        I don't want to see the frothing of the mentally ill base blow up in these people's faces tragically. I just also don't feel bad if it does.

        Collapse
Load More