University of Virginia Library

Bad Violence

When Thurm Wenzl yelled at
Kleindienst, he was definitely bad
violence, for liberals and conservatives
alike, but for different reasons.
The liberals got upset because
Thurm was being violent in their
presence and causing a terrible
scene and just making a mess of the
evening. The average conservative
on the other hand was about ready
to punch Thurm in the mouth. He
was not particularly intimidated by
Thurm's tactics, but the fact that
Thurm was obviously a commie was
infuriating.

You almost have to hand it to
the average reactionary. He may be
a dingaling, but he's not half as
selfish in a calculated way as the
average liberal.

All of this leaves unanswered
another basic question, which
Thurm and Tom Gardner and the
gang tried to raise all night, and
that is, what about Kliendienst's
violence? What about the incredible
things that we hear are happening
to the Black Panthers? What about
this business of throwing people
into prison for refusing to support
an undeclared war? What about the
Chicago trial?

To most conservatives, of
course, Kliendienst's tactics are
good almost by definition. After
all, this is what you call Stamping
Out Treason. But what does the
average liberal think about these
questions, or, since they don't tend
to directly affect him, does he
think of them at all?

Apparently not much.

One must remember that under
many circumstances liberals are
willing to tolerate fantastic
amounts of violence, pain, persecution,
and abuse, as long as it is not
directed at them. Thus it is invalid
for most liberals to condemn
Thurm's tactics on any sort of
moral grounds. How can anyone
who exhibits de facto support for
Kliendienst's brand of violence
possibly attack Thurm's, which
was, at the worst, impolite?