Is working within an existing party just too disgusting to think of?
No, my point was the recorded odds of success for assassins is much much better than conventional politics, by like several percent. How many hundreds of thousands of eager young people have enlisted in the Republican Party and associated conventional routes over the past 50 years, dedicating their lives and aspiring to change things?
How many changed things as much as, say, Sirhan Sirhan or Lee Harvey Oswald?
How many changed things as much as, say, Sirhan Sirhan or Lee Harvey Oswald?
Er, the US still supports Israel, and the US still opposes communism. Again, there’s a difference between changing things and fulfilling your aspirations.
Visiting the JFK Museum in Dallas just reinforces the huge dissonance between Kennedy-the-man and Kennedy-the-myth. If the presentations are to be believed, Kennedy would have pulled the US out of Vietnam, ended racial strife, and generally achieved liberal utopia.
Those assertions are incredibly laughable given what we know about (a) Kennedy’s politics and (b) what actually happened in the decades after his death.
Ted never came anywhere near the presidency and then he sealed the deal with his little car accident; JFK was hoping for two terms, of course, to be followed by RFK, since they were the gifted ones. Killing Ted would be useful from the Republican POV, of course, since Ted did a lot of good work in the Senate, but Robert and John were the threats.
I don’t see evidence that Sirhan Sirhan was Republican, and Oswald was definitely a communist. It’s not clear to me how that supports your point.
The point is that each had a vastly greater impact on the political process than they ever could have had by non-assassination routes.
That the impact was not in the direction of their goals is immaterial, because all that means is one needs slightly better planning and then one will have both vast impact on politics and do so in the direction of one’s goals. The need for tweaks does not refute the basic point about marginal advantage. (I just said this in my other comment.)
OK, so what we’re learning here is that, while Sirhan and Oswald didn’t achieve their goals (which after all were far fetched and which nobody else has achieved since), the Republican Party would have achieved its goals (which were rather modest and much closer at hand) quite well by assassination. (And of course, that’s the basis from which many conspiracy theorists start: qui bono and all that. Even if you don’t buy their specific theories, which are usually nonsense, you can agree with them that such conspiracies would have been effective if they were real.)
It seems odd to compare cherry-picked assassins to run-of-the-mill politicians. Surely the proper comparison to the hordes of eager young party members is the hordes of eager young killers? (Admittedly, someone who picks up a gun and starts shooting with the intention of changing things but is ineffectual may not earn the title “assassin” in popular consciousness, but it’s not clear to me that that matters.)
What is cherry-picked about them? There aren’t very many real American attempts to begin with, of course a discussion will include Sirhan or Oswald. One of the two had military experience, yes, but nothing especially relevant and long-gun experience is easy to pick up (heck, I probably shoot as well as he did).
Further, I would think the recent example of Jared Loughner demonstrates that you don’t have to have to be very good to be a good assassin—by sheer bad luck he may not have actually killed Giffords but he did manage to pretty much kill her career inasmuch as she can barely vote and I doubt she’ll ever do anything of political significance again, I would not be surprised if she doesn’t even run for re-election.
(And what if you are serious about it and plan things out? Then you’ll be an Anders Breivik!)
Again. The fraction of assassins that had significant political effects is much much larger than the fraction of people working through conventional channels having significant political effects. I don’t see how one can dispute this, and would appreciate people being explicit about how they think the fractions are not hugely different or even in favor of conventional channels. (Once you have power, engineering it to predictably accomplish what you want to accomplish is detail-work.)
(Once you have power, engineering it to predictably accomplish what you want to accomplish is detail-work.)
I don’t think this is detail work; I think this is a serious point of contention. There are hosts of single-issue, small-time politicians who manage to achieve their goals. Assassins rarely achieve any goals beyond killing their targets. Hinckley didn’t get Jody Foster; Sirhan didn’t prevent Israel from getting military support from the US; Loughner didn’t stop women from holding positions of political power. Breivik appears to have hurt his cause more than helped it, but it’s too soon to judge the full effects. What are the broader goals that assassins have successfully accomplished?
Not really. At the time negotiations were already quite problematic. And if anything it had the opposite effect. The extreme right became discredited for a few years. They only made a gradual move back into something resembling respectability when negotiations didn’t achieve peace for another decade or so.
So, I don’t have any expertise in political assassination (either practical or historical), but I assume that for every would-be assassin who by skill, resources, or luck manages to even injure their target there are a hundred who never get that close… and that for a target as well-defended as a sitting American President, I assume the ratio is even larger.
If I’m right, then picking Oswald as an example is obvious cherrypicking. It’s not as bad as, say, looking at lottery winners to argue that buying a lottery ticket is as legitimate a way to make money as getting a job, but it’s an error of the same type. Pointing to how lottery winners are no more educated or qualified than I am doesn’t really help that argument.
That said, I seem to have misunderstood your point. Sure, it seems likely that a significantly larger fraction of sufficiently dedicated assassins have significant political effects than of equally dedicated politicians… agreed.
No, my point was the recorded odds of success for assassins is much much better than conventional politics, by like several percent. How many hundreds of thousands of eager young people have enlisted in the Republican Party and associated conventional routes over the past 50 years, dedicating their lives and aspiring to change things?
How many changed things as much as, say, Sirhan Sirhan or Lee Harvey Oswald?
Er, the US still supports Israel, and the US still opposes communism. Again, there’s a difference between changing things and fulfilling your aspirations.
The Kennedy political dynasty disappeared, though, which is something to gladden the hearts of Republicans.
As a Republican I have to disagree with you.
We lost one of the most conservative Democrats in recent memory and got LBJ instead.
Also JFK the martyr probably did a lot more for the liberal cause than JFK the president ever did or would do.
I’m imagining your various organs in line for the polls. Most of ’em vote for your brain.
ETA: aw, you changed it.
Visiting the JFK Museum in Dallas just reinforces the huge dissonance between Kennedy-the-man and Kennedy-the-myth. If the presentations are to be believed, Kennedy would have pulled the US out of Vietnam, ended racial strife, and generally achieved liberal utopia.
Those assertions are incredibly laughable given what we know about (a) Kennedy’s politics and (b) what actually happened in the decades after his death.
I’m surprised that a forum regular would identify with either of the two major US political parties. Keep your identity small and all that.
Note: it’s “keep your identity small” not “have no identity”.
Still disappointed that people’s identity is so big that that of Greens or Blues fits in it. (Especially when “Greens” are teal and “Blues” are cyan.)
I don’t see evidence that Sirhan Sirhan was Republican, and Oswald was definitely a communist. It’s not clear to me how that supports your point.
(As well, you may have heard of this guy, goes by the name of Ted.)
Ted never came anywhere near the presidency and then he sealed the deal with his little car accident; JFK was hoping for two terms, of course, to be followed by RFK, since they were the gifted ones. Killing Ted would be useful from the Republican POV, of course, since Ted did a lot of good work in the Senate, but Robert and John were the threats.
The point is that each had a vastly greater impact on the political process than they ever could have had by non-assassination routes.
That the impact was not in the direction of their goals is immaterial, because all that means is one needs slightly better planning and then one will have both vast impact on politics and do so in the direction of one’s goals. The need for tweaks does not refute the basic point about marginal advantage. (I just said this in my other comment.)
I thought we were talking about success, not impact.
OK, so what we’re learning here is that, while Sirhan and Oswald didn’t achieve their goals (which after all were far fetched and which nobody else has achieved since), the Republican Party would have achieved its goals (which were rather modest and much closer at hand) quite well by assassination. (And of course, that’s the basis from which many conspiracy theorists start: qui bono and all that. Even if you don’t buy their specific theories, which are usually nonsense, you can agree with them that such conspiracies would have been effective if they were real.)
It seems odd to compare cherry-picked assassins to run-of-the-mill politicians. Surely the proper comparison to the hordes of eager young party members is the hordes of eager young killers? (Admittedly, someone who picks up a gun and starts shooting with the intention of changing things but is ineffectual may not earn the title “assassin” in popular consciousness, but it’s not clear to me that that matters.)
What is cherry-picked about them? There aren’t very many real American attempts to begin with, of course a discussion will include Sirhan or Oswald. One of the two had military experience, yes, but nothing especially relevant and long-gun experience is easy to pick up (heck, I probably shoot as well as he did).
Further, I would think the recent example of Jared Loughner demonstrates that you don’t have to have to be very good to be a good assassin—by sheer bad luck he may not have actually killed Giffords but he did manage to pretty much kill her career inasmuch as she can barely vote and I doubt she’ll ever do anything of political significance again, I would not be surprised if she doesn’t even run for re-election.
(And what if you are serious about it and plan things out? Then you’ll be an Anders Breivik!)
Again. The fraction of assassins that had significant political effects is much much larger than the fraction of people working through conventional channels having significant political effects. I don’t see how one can dispute this, and would appreciate people being explicit about how they think the fractions are not hugely different or even in favor of conventional channels. (Once you have power, engineering it to predictably accomplish what you want to accomplish is detail-work.)
I don’t think this is detail work; I think this is a serious point of contention. There are hosts of single-issue, small-time politicians who manage to achieve their goals. Assassins rarely achieve any goals beyond killing their targets. Hinckley didn’t get Jody Foster; Sirhan didn’t prevent Israel from getting military support from the US; Loughner didn’t stop women from holding positions of political power. Breivik appears to have hurt his cause more than helped it, but it’s too soon to judge the full effects. What are the broader goals that assassins have successfully accomplished?
I’m under the impression that Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination was a political success, though I’m willing to be corrected.
Not really. At the time negotiations were already quite problematic. And if anything it had the opposite effect. The extreme right became discredited for a few years. They only made a gradual move back into something resembling respectability when negotiations didn’t achieve peace for another decade or so.
So, I don’t have any expertise in political assassination (either practical or historical), but I assume that for every would-be assassin who by skill, resources, or luck manages to even injure their target there are a hundred who never get that close… and that for a target as well-defended as a sitting American President, I assume the ratio is even larger.
If I’m right, then picking Oswald as an example is obvious cherrypicking. It’s not as bad as, say, looking at lottery winners to argue that buying a lottery ticket is as legitimate a way to make money as getting a job, but it’s an error of the same type. Pointing to how lottery winners are no more educated or qualified than I am doesn’t really help that argument.
That said, I seem to have misunderstood your point. Sure, it seems likely that a significantly larger fraction of sufficiently dedicated assassins have significant political effects than of equally dedicated politicians… agreed.