Maxine Waters’ Call for Mob Violence Was Predictable — But Only From the Left

It could never have come from the right — and let's keep it that way.

By Tom Gilson Published on June 30, 2018

Someone was bound to do it, and it had to be someone on the left. Many paths led to Maxine Waters’ outrageous outcry last week. Lurking in the background, though, was one overriding, deadly principle: the belief in moral relativism over moral truth. Anyone can be a relativist, but it has a special home on the left side of American society.

The difference between moral relativism and moral realism isn’t necessarily what a person thinks is moral. It isn’t that one sort of person must be more moral than the other. The difference is in why people think certain things moral (or not), or better yet, what makes them moral.

Relativism: Easy for Individuals, Tough for a Society in Flux

To moral realist believes some attitudes and actions are truly right and others are truly wrong, in and of themselves, not just because of some person’s or groups opinions on them. The relativist, in contrast, typically believes morality is a personal or group decision. It’s either “What’s right or wrong for me,” or “What our culture accepts as right or wrong.”

As in any competition, the key question is, Which side should win?

Now, it’s easy enough for someone to decide her own morality for herself. For an entire culture, though, it’s tough — especially when that culture is in conflict and flux as ours is. There is no consensus answer to “what our culture accepts as right or wrong.” There’s brutal competition instead. And as in any competition, the key question is, Which side should win?

Two Scenarios, Two Kinds of Winners

Consider two scenarios.

In the first scenario, everyone believes moral truth is real. We have a duty to seek and follow that truth, and it’s better for all if we do.

In the second scenario, no one believes that: Morality is relative to time, place, and situation. We “should” just follow whatever views our group says we should.

Truth Wins …

In the first scenario, different views would still compete. We’d debate them vigorously — but we’d debate them with the hope and the goal of discovering what’s true.

Please Support The Stream: Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.

But our key question, Which side should win? would be: Whichever one is on the side of truth.

… Or Power Wins

In the other scenario, no one believes in any such standard. Deciding who should win is simple: It’s whoever wins.

Morality is what the group with the most influence determines to be moral for that culture in that day. But where does that influence come from? From being powerful.

Cultural power wears many faces — control of media, influence in education, dominance in the courts or the legislature, or even the threat or the use of physical violence. How the group wins doesn’t matter; they just have to come out on top.

Which Would You Rather Live Under?

Now, which scenario would you rather live in?

Some people would say the second. They’re the ones who think their side can win. Most of us, though, would rather not have our morality dictated by raw power. We’ve seen the carnage in countries where one person or party had complete control, and used that power according to their own “morality.” Most of us can even remember what it was like when the school bully tried to set the rules for everyone.

The Power Scenario Played Out in the Real World — Especially the Left

Of course, n the real world, we don’t have just one or two kinds of belief among us. But we do have plenty of people who operate mostly on the relativists’ principle of winning by whatever means.

They need not care about being more right than their opponents. Their approach instead is to acquire more power — and to use it.

They need not care about being more right than their opponents; they don’t even think there is such a thing. Their approach instead is to acquire power — and use it.

Which leads straight to college students shouting down conservative speakers. It leads to brutalizing opponents through shaming — which is exactly what’s going on when (for example) “white civility” is denounced as “the manifestation of white patriarchy,” when virtually anything can be “racist,” or when a plea for sexual morality is vilified as “homophobic bigotry.” It also leads to a call from a prominent politicians for mob violence.

Sure, this can happen on either side of the political spectrum. But it wasn’t a conservative who called for mob violence. And it isn’t conservative students standing up and shouting down liberal guest speakers on campus. Conservatives didn’t take violently to the street when Obama was elected, as liberals did when Trump won. They didn’t shout, “Not my president!” Conservatives didn’t honor a foul-mouthed presidential-violence-promoting actor by making him lord of the Tony awards.

Resist the Temptation to Play Along

We haven’t done that, and God help us, we’d better not.

Winning is great, especially in pursuit of important moral, political, and spiritual battles. But winning per se shouldn’t be our ultimate goal. Victory isn’t really victory unless its tied to truth.

It was predictable that when some member of Congress called for mob violence, it would be a Democrat who would do it. Let’s keep it that predictable. We should play to win. But let the other side be the ones who think it’s all about power. We know that whether we win or lose this or that battle, the truth will win the war.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Like the article? Share it with your friends! And use our social media pages to join or start the conversation! Find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, MeWe and Gab.

Inspiration
The Scarcity Mindset
Robert Morris
More from The Stream
Connect with Us