Letter: Tim Streasick on violence against government

Dear Editor:

I read your latest issue and felt a need to respond to an article in it. While I’ve enjoyed the latest political tracts of both Mike Schmidt and Aaron Gonzalez, Schmidt’s latest article shows a distinct lack of context, responsibility, and thought.

Its title, “Don’t be livestock; take a stand against government violence” led me to believe at first that it would be against literal violence that the government might inflict upon the populace. Instead I found myself reading a muddled, confused, and overextended metaphor that had something to do with some form of grazing mammals, a tired shepherd, and a wolf. I think. I’m still working the metaphor out.

Yet while the creative metaphor can be forgiven, I can’t help but feel angry at Schmidt’s suggestion that violence is the proper answer for opposition to the government. It would be one thing if he were talking about a hypothetical situation, suggesting that if the government becomes Orwellian we should take up arms against it. Instead he states, “in current times, if we choose non-violence, we would be no better than cattle, for we would have as much freedom as they do.”

To this I ask: What has the government done to deserve violent response? Martin Luther King, whose acts of non-violence were cited in Schmidt’s article, faced institutional violence. He faced attack dogs, water cannons, and jail time. Who are the citizens that have faced this? Who is Schmidt trying to protect? Schmidt obliquely references “rights” being taken away, and so I ask which rights he thinks are being taken. Which rights have been disregarded by the present administration? And finally, I’d ask Schmidt who he regards as “the government?” Is he talking about Government officials? Public Schools? Fire Departments? The Police? His professors and this college? The Military?

I wonder, hypothetically, what Schmidt would do if someone were to take his words literally and “oppose” the government “violently.” Would he wring his hands and, in my mind justifiably, feel guilty for the violence that he caused, like Jack Lucas from “The Fisher King?” Or would he, like Glenn Beck, wash his hands of all responsibility if a reader decides to take things too far?

As a concerned reader, I’d enjoy some form of clarification, if Schmidt can offer any. The suggestion he made was irresponsible, and an adult like Schmidt should know better than to suggest violent revolt without offering good, clear reasoning. If Schmidt doesn’t feel like doing so is worth his time, than I hope he might, in the future, listen to the wisdom of Jon Stewart and “take it down a notch.”

—Tim Streasick,
graduate student of North Branch, Mich.