There is a sandstorm of discussion taking place right now regarding the propriety of the project of confronting people who posted statements in social media like “too bad he missed”, “better aim next time”, “we almost got rid of him”, etc. This project has largely been undertaken by @libsoftiktok.
As I see it, there are two main objections. First, isn’t it hypocritical to cancel people while objecting to cancel culture? Second, why go after average joes and ruin their lives instead of focussing on more powerful people?
So, on the first question. The problem with cancel culture is that people lost their jobs, reputations, even freedom in some instances for exercising first amendment liberties. It is one thing to express an opinion that is disagreeable to many, or even most, people; but this doesn’t mean that someone should be removed from their position for expressing their opinion. But in this case, people are expressing their approval for a political assassination, their joy in the prospect of Trump’s murder, and their hope that someone else is successful in what amounts to an act of terrorism. This is a world of difference from being cancelled for expressing unpopular opinions. Those being confronted with their vocal support for a bullet being aimed at Trump are egging on a rain of more bullets aimed in every direction. They are hastening us towards lawlessness and war.
As regards the second question, the average joe being held accountable for hooraying the assassination attempt is perhaps the most potent way, as I see it, to break the spell which the progressive brain worm has cast upon a large majority of our nation. Yes, the removal or making irrelevant of the head honchos in the progressive movement would be significant, but from a strategic standpoint that’s not attainable. Thus, accountability fastballs, high and inside, are quite appropriate, even for the worst batter on the other team. Another revealing aspect is that many of the people being exposed for their fondness for political assassinations are school teachers. In other words, the trope that these are just lowly grandmas that need their phones taken away is not entirely the full picture. Many of these folks tasting the bitter pill of accountability (perhaps for the first time in their lives) have been filling schoolchildren’s minds with their mush. This is not an insignificant detail.
Remember, the principles of war require that when you score a victory you pursue the enemy. If you’ve scattered them, don’t allow them to regroup. Conservatives are all too content to play nice, and imagine they are being quite gentlemanly by allowing their political opponent to regather. I do not want to live in country where political assassinations are normal or celebrated; countries like that tend to have very little bread on the grocery store shelves. We live in troubled times and this means we will have to do the hard work of making foolish people defend their indefensible public statements.
Furthermore, making people face the consequences for their foolish words is a biblical principle. Consider these Proverbs: He that winketh with the eye causeth sorrow: but a prating fool shall fall (Pro 10:10). A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool’s back (Pro 26:3). A reproof entereth more into a wise man than an hundred stripes into a fool (Pro 17:10).
So then, prating fools need to face the rod of reproof, and this should be done in the hopes that the reproof sinks deep down into them. Reproof is redemptive. Those who repent and seek forgiveness should be given forgiveness freely. But we must not forget the significance of making fools face consequences for their folly: “Smite a scorner, and the simple will beware: and reprove one that hath understanding, and he will understand knowledge (Pro 19:25).”