From years ago living in central Pennsylvania, I recall the unmistakable signs of the first day of deer season, usually right after Thanksgiving — parked cars lining the roads in wooded areas, orange-clad, rifle-toting hunters everywhere, neighborhood chatter about who bagged the biggest buck. For serious hunters, it was the best day of the year (although not so for the deer).
Right now, in a more serious and much darker way, it feels like open season on violence. On the TV news just about every evening, we see a report of another hideously violent event of some kind, somewhere — a mass shooting in a midtown Manhattan office, a mass knifing in a Michigan Walmart, a vicious mob beatdown of defenseless victims on a Cincinnati sidewalk, assaults and ambushes of ICE agents everywhere. And a steady stream of others over the past weeks and months.
At some point there will be a statistical assessment, but for now it sure has the feel of an entirely new level of wanton, violent behavior sweeping the country. This is not the America we know.
Within the cascade of violent events over the past few months, the variations are striking. It’s not just gangs, or inner cities, or immigrants, or extremist sects — it’s across the board, coast to coast. The assailants employ every manner of weapons — guns, knives, vehicles, rocks, gasoline (three cases of intentional incineration of the victim), fists and boots, all with lethal intent.
The common denominators? Astonishing level of savagery, unbridled rage, unbound by the restraints of civilized society, laws, or concern about the pain and horror they inflict, casual willingness to mow down not just the target but anyone who happens to be in range. Surely mental illness plays a part, but it seems to me that anyone who participates in such carnage must have a few screws loose.
In this morass, the overarching mentality seems to be: If you are angry enough — at your spouse, your neighbors, the NFL, your boss, your government, ICE, Trump, Musk, society at large, anyone — then have at it, ANYTHING GOES.
Why is this happening? The experts are trying to figure it all out, generally looking for background and motives in each case. And so far, I’ll admit to skepticism that the answer is in acknowledged motives or grievances. As one example, Cincinnati’s police chief spoke of the need to understand the “context” of the personal interactions that suddenly erupted — as if there might be some aggravating behavior that somehow explains one person’s sudden compulsion to beat another human being nearly to death.
For years, we’ve been trying to unpack the causes of societal violence. We can be sure that family is a factor; we know that social media, video games, and pornography are real problems; we can argue forever the issue of “too many guns.” But for this latest spate of extreme violence, let me posit two new factors that are likely contributors and that offer opportunities for correction:
1.) The Sanctuary myth.
I believe the now-pervasive practice of American cities and states declaring themselves to be “sanctuaries” for illegal immigrants effectively encourages and enables civil disorder — and not just in immigration matters.
The idea of creating a sanctuary city or state is rooted in the presumption that if citizens disagree with our federal government’s policy or practice, they may not only express their disagreement (as permitted by our First Amendment), they may refuse to comply and they may even actively interfere with or undermine the government’s actions.
Further, doing so is not just a matter of individual civil disobedience; in self-declared sanctuaries, such obstruction is officially condoned and guided by the elected state or city authorities.
Today in the USA, sanctuary city policies of non-cooperation with ICE agents put those agents (officers of the law, in service to our country) at substantial risk in doing their jobs. Moreover, we’ve all seen such sanctioned opposition degenerate into protests, violent obstruction, planned attacks, and in some cases injury and death to our own law enforcement professionals. It’s outrageous.
And apropos of the steady increase of violence nationwide, I have no doubt that the sanctuary mentality creeps into the heads of disgruntled individuals everywhere, who then decide to show us all just how angry they are — such as in Manhattan, or in Michigan, or in Cincinnati this past week.
2.) Incendiary Political rhetoric.
Democrats, on the back foot ever since last November’s election and now polling dreadfully, have adopted the tactic of stoking Americans’ fury at the president, any who support him (right now, a majority of the nation) and everything he is doing, good or bad.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries loudly exhort their followers to “Resist! Resist! Resist!” and to “Fight! Fight! Fight!” Both express full support of Democrat opposition to ICE and are notably silent about the violence it begets. Last week, Senator Cory Booker delivered a widely publicized speech — the full fire and brimstone variety, with contorted face, shirt collar open, chest-pounding, fists pumping, effectively calling for Democrats to follow him into the trenches and take no prisoners.
These are pure performative art, and they get plenty of attention on cable news and social media. But in today’s fragile and violence-prone climate, It’s entirely the wrong posture, it reinforces the sanctuary mentality, and among some followers, it surely arouses passions and outrage.
We must find a way to turn down the heat, to return to the civil discourse that was once the hallmark of our nation. And we must stop tolerating the intolerable.
The president has attempted to sanction the sanctuary states and cities by withholding federal funding, but so far has been stymied by the courts because allocation of funding is a congressional function.
Moreover, the U.S. Constitution does not give the president the authority to mandate compliance. I’m guessing that’s because it never occurred to the Founders that some states might one day decide to absolve themselves from cooperation with federal authorities. Imagine if, during the War of 1812, Maryland had declared itself to be a “sanctuary” for the invading British forces — how would that have worked out?
Knowing our president’s tenacity, we can expect that he will find a way to restore proper balance. That will undoubtedly be controversial, but like so many of his initiatives, it is imperative.
We citizens have ways to redress our disagreements with our government — they’re called elections. Short of that, a functional society must resolve to pull together. “United we Stand” is a meaningless sentiment if some sectors of our nation keep trying to sink the ship.
