The Sanctified Purveyors of Lethal Violence
‘For the Good of the Party’
by William Norman Grigg
“… the Party hands out to you no prospect of reward…. We propose no bargain and we promise nothing. There is a passage in your journal which impressed me. You wrote: ‘I have thought and acted as I had to. If I was right, I have nothing to repent of; if wrong, I shall pay…. You were wrong, and you will pay, Comrade Rubashov.”
Party interrogator Gletkin explains to loyalist Rubashov why the best interests of the Party require his liquidation, from Arthur Koestler’s novel Darkness at Noon.
“My least-favorite phrase in the English language,” former Republican congressional candidate Brian Miller sighed with weary disgust, “is ‘for the good of the party.'”
Miller, chairman (at least for now) of Arizona’s Pima County Republican Party, made the mistake of assuming that the interests of the Party were best served by defending individual liberty. That’s why he protested the May 5 murder of Jose Guerena by a SWAT team in a widely circulated e-mail entitled “We Are All Jose Guerena.”
“While an investigation is still underway to determine the facts immediately surrounding the killing, it is my hope that this tragic event will lead to a renewed discussion of the policies that routinely lead to heavily armed and militarized local police invading private homes and a renewed interest in the civil liberties codified in our Bill of Rights,” wrote Miller.
Mr. Miller dispatched that message in the quiet confidence that he had done nothing wrong, and no cause to repent. His comrades in the Party Committee, however, insist that he is guilty of inciting “distrust of Pima County law enforcement agencies.”
In a free society, “law enforcement” wouldn’t exist, although the presence of peace officers would be tolerated. Conditionally. In a constitutional republic, public demonstration of distrust toward “law enforcement” would be considered a token of conscientious citizenship. In the American Soyuz, however, criticizing “law enforcement” is akin to engaging in “anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda.” To that supposed offense, Miller added the even more grievous sin of undermining the interests of the Party. Acting on dubious procedural grounds, the Committee demanded Miller’s resignation.