Trojan Euphemisms

The glitterati enjoyed one of their self-congratulatory spendfests the other night, and New York City's rookie mayor (who is reportedly a celebrity-chaser extraordinaire) saw an opportunity. At the annual Metropolitan Museum of Art's Costume Institute Gala, Eric Adams took quite the fashion risk by sporting a tuxedo embroidered with "End Gun Violence."

Oh, who am I kidding? What risk is there in such a statement? Is there anyone, other than some hardened criminals, who actually supports gun violence? Isn't "End Gun Violence" just another version of "thoughts and prayers?"

The mayor and veteran of the NYPD ran on a law-and-order platform, promising to address the surge in crime under "What, me worry?" Bill DeBlasio's tenure and born in no small part of bail-reform-done-wrong by the progressives in the state government. He's taken some steps in that direction, but only time will tell if he is willing (or even able) to confront the leftist thinking that has birthed this wave of lawlessness.

Meanwhile, I've heard nary a peep from those quarters about relaxing the draconian gun (and other weapon) restrictions that prevent average New Yorkers from defending themselves, especially with the increased hamstringing of police, the 'catch-and-release' revolving door created by bail reforms, and the pro-criminality zeitgeist that has infected big blue cities. Worse yet, the only right-of-center voice of any significance in the local New York media, the Post, waxed hyperbolic in fear of an upcoming Supreme Court ruling that might restore gun rights in one of the few places in the nation that hasn't seen the broad progress of the past four decades. The paper's readers excoriated the tabloid for this anti-liberty and un-conservative position.

It wasn't that long ago that many on the Left mocked the "thoughts and prayers" virtue signal that littered social media in the wake of some mass shootings. The argument then was that "thoughts and prayers" did nothing to address the underlying causes of those or other crimes, and it's a valid one. What should be at the fore is advocacy for policy changes that will work. The evidence is rather clear that restricting the rights of the law-abiding does not fall in that category, yet that's the first reflex of most statist politicians.

They pursue it, nevertheless, because it's an easy pitch to make. Because it's a "hey, at least I'm trying to do something" dodge. Because addressing the recent surge in crime would require some mea culpas, some reversals of policy, and some fundamental mindset changes away from "blame the object" to "blame the individual." Because the progressive loons who peddle the “only cops are criminals” nonsense have take over the asylum. And, because the things that would work come with more of a political price than being anti-gun in a very liberal city.

The phrase "gun violence" is yet another misdirecting euphemism, an attempt to conflate the matter of gun rights (which leftists hate) with violent crime (which is often perpetrated with weapons other than guns), so that the latter can be used to infringe the former. As such, it's a Trojan Horse, concealing the desire to take guns away from the law abiding inside a shell that no good person would find disagreeable. Again - who doesn't want to end gun violence, other than criminals or the cynical agitators who use every occurrence as a "never let a crisis go to waste" opportunity?

Moreso, why no thoughts and prayers for other violence? Knives and clubs can make a victim just as dead as guns. Is violence committed with such tools less worthy of politicians' attention?

That's not rhetorical, by the way. Manhattan's new District Attorney sought to prosecute violent crimes by both tool and outcome, as in, if you were attacked but escaped without injury, the crime was of less import. There's a way to address over-policing, but going soft on violent acts is not it.

We know why: Political narratives are more important than the problems politicians are elected to fix. A remedy that runs contrary to the narrative is a remedy that will not only not be tried, it's one that'll be denounced, often in fashions wholly detached from reality. In the case of violent crime, the people in charge would have to confront decades of wrong-headed policies and political philosophy, and that's a dissonance most of them could not abide.

Instead, we get the mayor of the nation's biggest city attending a $35,000-per-ticket party while bragging about how his euphemizing tuxedo was “repurposed" and therefore the “project” was “sustainable.” I'm sure that the event was protected by heavily armed police and/or private security... while average New Yorkers get literally laughed at if they ask for permission to carry a gun for self-defense.

---

If you enjoy The Roots of Liberty, please subscribe (if you have already, thank you!), and  please recommend the blog to your friends! While I share it as much as I can on social media, subscribing ensures you won't miss a post.

If you really like The Roots of Liberty and want to help keep it rolling, please consider becoming a paying subscriber here at Substack, or at a lighter level as contributor to the blog via Patreon.

Thank you for your support!

Yours in liberty,

Peter.