You’ve heard it before. In the wake of a cruel act against someone who is even mildly controversial, condemnations of the event get prefaced with a separation from the individual’s personal beliefs. It goes like this: “I don’t agree with his politics, but …”
The latest example of this frequently-used phrase have been responses to the recent attack on Quillette editor Andy Ngo. Prominent liberals and leftists who were willing to respond at all made sure to let it be known beforehand that their denunciation of violence didn’t imply they were in any way fond of Ngo’s work.
Actor Stephen Ford wrote, “Look, I may not agree with the viewpoints of Andy Ngo. Clearly many people feel the same. But it doesn’t matter. Attacking people because they don’t think the way that you do just exacerbates ideological extremism.”
Author Shireen Qudosi commented, “It’s public that I don’t agree [with Andy Ngo] in recent times, but I can also condemn violence against him w/o dog whistling to anyone who would justify attacking folks [with] different views.”
Yet the most high-profile example of this deflection comes from former 2020 presidential hopeful Eric Swalwell. He tweeted, “I don’t agree with much of what [Andy Ngo] ever says. But that’s not the point. He should not be harmed for his views and his attackers should be prosecuted.”
Kudos to these individuals for responding to this attack — countless progressive pundits and personalities haven’t given it the time of day. But compare for a moment Swalwell’s response with the response of his fellow Democrat, Andrew Yang. On July 1, Yang tweeted, “I hope [Andy Ngo] is okay. Journalists should be safe to report on a protest without being targeted.”
Simple, sweet, and exponentially more powerful. No qualifier needed.
The evil of this event should be stark and immediately apparent. Ngo was viciously attacked. He was bashed upside the head and brutally beaten. He had to go to the hospital, and was left with bruises, scars, a ripped earlobe, and not to mention, a brain hemorrhage. Why on earth should denouncement of an attack of this nature and severity need any sort of justification?
I must admit, at certain points in my life, I have uttered similar clarifications, but I’ve recently come to the realization that such remarks are unnecessary and immature. Fear of what one’s followers might think is not justification enough to tone down one’s response to wrongdoing.
This should be simple: Don’t undermine your condemnation with a cop-out.
Haley Victory Smith is an editorial fellow at USA Today.
