What Kyle Rittenhouse means for America
It’s difficult to underscore how consequential this trial may end up being for the country.
Saw this in my Twitter feed this morning and, honestly, I’m deeply conflicted:
I don’t have much of a novel take on the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. Like many, I’ve believed from the beginning that the trial is entirely politically motivated and there was ample evidence from the day of the incident that this was a case of self-defense. Keep in mind, Rittenhouse was one of thousands of participants in the mass civil unrest of 2020. Yet he, not those burning, looting, and terrorizing, is the one with a high-profile trial with all the weapons of the state aimed at him. Mind you, Rittenhouse isn’t necessarily on trial for what he did, but who he is and what he represents.
The manner in which the trial has proceeded, which is to say, badly for the prosecution, proves just how thin the prosecution’s case was. Yet they proceeded, which isn’t much of a choice when politics are involved. I personally can’t see how Rittenhouse is convicted of the most serious charges (the only charge for which there’s any kind of legitimacy is that of “possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18”). But, this is 2021 and politics are the final arbiter.
It’s difficult to underscore how consequential this trial may end up being for the country. As I’ve said in a prior post, America has effectively chosen to forget the events of 2020 - denial is, after all, a natural response to trauma. I also sense that a certain level of buyer’s remorse has kicked in, that many Americans intrinsically believe, whether they want to admit it or not, that what happened last year was a serious overreaction wrought by a rare confluence of extremely unfortunate events. If the George Floyd riots were really the start of a revolution, it’s one that seems to have lost steam just as the train picked up speed.
But, if the conviction of former Officer Derek Chauvin in the murder of Floyd allowed the country to move on from 2020, the Rittenhouse trial may bring it all back, front and center. If there are indeed large segments of the population who found the 2020 unrest a perfectly justifiable response to a perceived injustice, there’s no reason to believe these same people would sit still in the event Rittenhouse is acquitted of any or all charges. It’s worth noting that, in some areas, the 2020 unrest never actually ended, only that it’s prevalence is limited to extremist groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter (BLM).
The only question is, how will the public react? Will they throw their support behind the initial fury, as they did in 2020? Reaction is likely to be divisive, but this may also have the effect of muting public reaction. I find it unlikely we’ll see a repeat of 2020, which was, again, the product of a rare confluence of events. I often decry the normalcy bias of people, but, in some ways, that very normalcy bias is effective at maintaining peace and order. There’s no way to know for sure, but I just don’t see the same kind of reckoning happening in the wake of Rittenhouse’s trial that we saw in the wake of George Floyd’s death.
Still, there’s a strong possibility of unrest in places like Kenosha and the entire affair would further expose deep divisions among Americans, divisions that could certainly be exploited later. There’s also the possibility Rittenhouse could be found guilty of some or all of his charges, which would send a very clear message about the state of rule of law in the U.S. Even if Rittenhouse were acquitted, it’s still by no means the end of his legal troubles - federal charges and civil ligitation remain on the table.
Which brings me back to the tweet from the beginning of this post. Any self-defense expert worth their salt will emphasize “personal safety” above all else. Personal safety, unlike self-defense, isn’t focused on getting yourself out of a bad situation, but keeping yourself out of bad situations. You don’t have to defend yourself if you’re not in a situation where self-defense becomes necessary. It’s entirely reasonable to conclude that the Rittenhouse trial is politically motivated and his actions were consistent with the right to self-defense, while also stating that Rittenhouse just might’ve bitten off more than he could chew. There’s nothing “too-clever-by-half” about such an observation, unless one genuinely believes Rittenhouse had some sort of responsibility to be there.
I’ve said in a previous post that those who talk of civil war probably do so in large part because they don’t like the direction the country is going and find peaceful solutions to be ineffective. I believe the same thought process is at work here - those who applaud Rittenhouse for taking action do so because they think the time for war has come and it’ll take people like Rittenhouse to fight it and win it. Again, the thought this regime, this status quo, whatever you want to call it, can roll along in perpetuity is a prospect that terrifies millions of Americans and Rittenhouse is someone who gives them some measure of hope.
Of course, that’s assuming Rittenhouse is acquitted. If convicted, will resistance still look as appealing as it did at first glance?
Of course, Rittenhouse may not have intended to fight anyone. He may have genuinely sought to defend life and property from dangerous mobs. But, if Rittenhouse is any kind of example to follow and if it’s going to take young men “with a bias toward action” to save this country, what does this actually say about our country, anyway? This is less a judgment of Rittenhouse’s actions and more a call to reflect upon the implications it has for the country.
If we now expect 17-year-olds to step up and assume the responsibility of protecting lives and property, this means the state has failed or is failing. This may not be news to many readers, but it also means there’s no use in pretending to go along with the system. Is there anyone out there who’s truly ready to assume these responsibilities in full, especially when the state still does have a say in the matter? When most of the public, no matter their political views, would rather not see the country descend into disintegration and civil war? The world looks very different when you’re sitting alone on the witness stand of a courtroom, with a crusading prosecutor asking pointed questions, a jury studying your every response, and a large portion of the public out for your blood.
Furthermore, why are we letting the 17-year-olds take the lead, anyway? Where are the village elders? Where’s the leadership? Perhaps these are voids that merely need to be filled, but it does say that having young men with a bias toward action alone isn’t only not enough, but downright dangerous. The point isn’t to fight for a cause, but to survive. Thousands or even millions of Kyle Rittenhouses can lead to a lot of bloodshed with no assurances as to how much life and property they could be expected to preserve.
During the mass unrest in South Africa this past summer, social media was filled with videos of adult men and women banding together to protect their communities and livelihoods. The damage was extensive, but things would’ve been a lot worse if not for these adults who came together in a time of crisis to hold the line. People with the wisdom and kinship necessary to both spur them to action and not go off in search of monsters to slay, but to protect what was behind them. This isn’t to say Rittenhouse was looking for trouble, but it is to say he sallied forth into danger with probably less than a good idea of what he was getting himself into, with at most one other person.
Young men with a bias for action need leadership. Adult leadership. The kind that only comes from strong communities and those who seek not to destroy what’s in front of them, but defend what’s behind them.
There are no easy answers to these questions and I have to emphasize this isn’t necessarily a critique of Rittenhouse’s actions. It’s to say we all ought to be very careful about what we wish for. Young men with a bias for action may indeed come in handy in the future, with America entering an age of escalating domestic conflict and anarcho-tyranny, which I explained in my last post, becoming the status quo. If the U.S. goes the way of places like Latin America and South Africa, which I believe it will, then inaction will be fatal and millions of Americans just might change their minds about the necessity of people like Rittenhouse.
Whatever we do, wherever we go, caution and restraint are warranted. What many Americans seem to be asking of our Kyle Rittenhouses is a lot, a responsibility they may not be prepared for. And, as I’ve said before and will say again, what may be inevitable or even necessary (civil war) isn’t exactly something we should look forward to.
Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.
If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!