It's a tactical matter whether or not you wish to employ the strategy against any given person. I probably wouldn't do it to someone I otherwise liked and who I didn't think would do the same thing to me.
That said, at a higher level I think society has gotten too casual in its use of "war verbiage" in politics. OP is right that "war is a continuation of politics by other means", so I would think then that unless you are prepared to go to war you wouldn't want to speak of existential threats, and heavily discourage people from speaking in such terms.
You could see (and I commented on several times at the time) in the aftermath of the 2020 election the same sort of "war verbiage" (eg. "if we let this election fraud stand we don't have a country any more"), and I said at the time (before 1/6) "these people saying these things are playing a dangerous game, because you risk people taking them seriously and taking them to their logical conclusions. So if you say them then you'd better really believe them, because some people will." And lo and behold, a lot of the politicians saying those things actually didn't believe them; and a lot of normal people who did are sitting in prison right now as a result when support they probably thought they had completely evaporated.
And it's happening here too: "threat to democracy and our very way of life" taken to its logical conclusion is...what almost happened on Saturday. If you believe that statement is true (which I don't of course), then the only logically consistent critique of the shooter is that he didn't actually wait until Trump won the election. And now a husband and father is dead, as is a 20-year old kid who got whipped into a frenzy by being exposed to it for half his life.
So I would say that if you don't want these things to happen every election you need to tamp down heavily on that sort of verbiage unless you really mean it. Ideally the politicians and press who pushed this would be in prison for instigating it, but I think we both know that won't happen. The next best thing (but far from a perfect solution because it punishes normal people) is for there to be consequences for normal people saying such things the same way there is for joking about bombs in an airport security line.
My line of thinking is more "smack their instigators down hard (because they just shot one of ours), and only if they've shown they can behave* can there be a mutual de-escalation where if either side instigates they get smacked down."
Unless and until that happens you have to do tit for tat. Arguably smacking them down hard itself is tit for tat since that's what they did for 1/6.
* Which given their total reversal in less than 24 hours is highly improbable.
OP is right that "war is a continuation of politics by other means",
As you no doubt know, that is from Clausewitz, and the proper translation is policy, not politics. And that was obviously never meant as domestic politics, except when war is leveraged to accomplish to accomplish domestic goals - e.g. the French Revolutionary Wars.
I said at the time (before 1/6) "these people saying these things are playing a dangerous game, because you risk people taking them seriously and taking them to their logical conclusions. So if you say them then you'd better really believe them, because some people will." And lo and behold, a lot of the politicians saying those things actually didn't believe them; and a lot of normal people who did are sitting in prison right now as a result when support they probably thought they had completely evaporated.
But that was probably inevitable. Even if they did all believe it, there is nothing that you can do. Not to mention that they act in accordance with their interests and not in accordance with their beliefs, whatever these are.
And it's happening here too: "threat to democracy and our very way of life" taken to its logical conclusion is...what almost happened on Saturday. If you believe that statement is true (which I don't of course), then the only logically consistent critique of the shooter is that he didn't actually wait until Trump won the election.
He'd probably have better security. But point taken. Condemning this attack is incompatible with believing that he is worse than Hitler. There are some people who try to square the circle by arguing that Trump is an existential threat who should be taken out using lawful means, but I can't say it is very persuasive.
Ideally the politicians and press who pushed this would be in prison for instigating it, but I think we both know that won't happen.
It'd also violate Brandenburg vs. Ohio.
The next best thing (but far from a perfect solution because it punishes normal people) is for there to be consequences for normal people saying such things the same way there is for joking about bombs in an airport security line.
But that serves an actual purpose. I would be OK with the cruelty if it actually advanced the good in some meaningful way. How exactly does punishing miserable minimum wage workers, who have no idea about politics beyond what they hear from the lying media, advance the good?.
I guess spreading terror. But will it improve things if people do not feel as comfortable mouthing off about Trump as they are now? I'd say that a lot of pro-Trump sentiment is caused not by the man's virtues, but by the vileness of his opponents.
Let "weakening Russia" be your policy. You can do that by ordinary means, like sanctions. You can do it by sending weapons to some country sacrificing its young men for your empire. And you can do it by declaring war.
It's not my translation. It's that of Michael Howard and Peter Paret.
It's a tactical matter whether or not you wish to employ the strategy against any given person. I probably wouldn't do it to someone I otherwise liked and who I didn't think would do the same thing to me.
That said, at a higher level I think society has gotten too casual in its use of "war verbiage" in politics. OP is right that "war is a continuation of politics by other means", so I would think then that unless you are prepared to go to war you wouldn't want to speak of existential threats, and heavily discourage people from speaking in such terms.
You could see (and I commented on several times at the time) in the aftermath of the 2020 election the same sort of "war verbiage" (eg. "if we let this election fraud stand we don't have a country any more"), and I said at the time (before 1/6) "these people saying these things are playing a dangerous game, because you risk people taking them seriously and taking them to their logical conclusions. So if you say them then you'd better really believe them, because some people will." And lo and behold, a lot of the politicians saying those things actually didn't believe them; and a lot of normal people who did are sitting in prison right now as a result when support they probably thought they had completely evaporated.
And it's happening here too: "threat to democracy and our very way of life" taken to its logical conclusion is...what almost happened on Saturday. If you believe that statement is true (which I don't of course), then the only logically consistent critique of the shooter is that he didn't actually wait until Trump won the election. And now a husband and father is dead, as is a 20-year old kid who got whipped into a frenzy by being exposed to it for half his life.
So I would say that if you don't want these things to happen every election you need to tamp down heavily on that sort of verbiage unless you really mean it. Ideally the politicians and press who pushed this would be in prison for instigating it, but I think we both know that won't happen. The next best thing (but far from a perfect solution because it punishes normal people) is for there to be consequences for normal people saying such things the same way there is for joking about bombs in an airport security line.
My line of thinking is more "smack their instigators down hard (because they just shot one of ours), and only if they've shown they can behave* can there be a mutual de-escalation where if either side instigates they get smacked down."
Unless and until that happens you have to do tit for tat. Arguably smacking them down hard itself is tit for tat since that's what they did for 1/6.
* Which given their total reversal in less than 24 hours is highly improbable.
As you no doubt know, that is from Clausewitz, and the proper translation is policy, not politics. And that was obviously never meant as domestic politics, except when war is leveraged to accomplish to accomplish domestic goals - e.g. the French Revolutionary Wars.
But that was probably inevitable. Even if they did all believe it, there is nothing that you can do. Not to mention that they act in accordance with their interests and not in accordance with their beliefs, whatever these are.
He'd probably have better security. But point taken. Condemning this attack is incompatible with believing that he is worse than Hitler. There are some people who try to square the circle by arguing that Trump is an existential threat who should be taken out using lawful means, but I can't say it is very persuasive.
It'd also violate Brandenburg vs. Ohio.
But that serves an actual purpose. I would be OK with the cruelty if it actually advanced the good in some meaningful way. How exactly does punishing miserable minimum wage workers, who have no idea about politics beyond what they hear from the lying media, advance the good?.
I guess spreading terror. But will it improve things if people do not feel as comfortable mouthing off about Trump as they are now? I'd say that a lot of pro-Trump sentiment is caused not by the man's virtues, but by the vileness of his opponents.
I dispute your translation. Policies don’t have means. There are ends.
Let "weakening Russia" be your policy. You can do that by ordinary means, like sanctions. You can do it by sending weapons to some country sacrificing its young men for your empire. And you can do it by declaring war.
It's not my translation. It's that of Michael Howard and Peter Paret.
Then, as a German-speaker, I dispute their translation. It’s incorrect.