Did alt-right leader Richard Spencer deserve to be punched in the head?

Prominent alt-righter Richard Spencer was punched in the face last Friday while giving an interview in Washington. Spencer is a controversial figure, founder of an alt-right journal and its attendant podcast, he regularly expresses views that many of us would find distasteful in the extreme. He appears to have a sort of 'might is right' perspective, declaring that white European culture and values are what grounded the American ethos and make the country what it is. Consequently, he holds that non-white Americans could be funded and encouraged to return 'home'.

He is against immigration of any kind.  I can’t imagine what African, Asian or other non-white Americans who were born in the US, and whose ancestors have been there for generations, would think and feel at being told to ‘return’ to somewhere they have never been or have no meaningful connection with. The counterarguments to all of these ideas are many and readily accessible – I have no intention of engaging with Spencer’s ideas here.

It’s sufficient to clarify how thoroughly distasteful I find his views before expressing my total bafflement at the celebration online and in the media of what was, without question, a physical assault.

A quick online search will show you countless tweets celebrating the assault as well as edited footage of Spencer being punched set to music like ‘Born in the USA’. The consensus, particularly from the left, seems to be that he had it coming (despite the fact that this assault has done nothing but help Spencer). However, whether Spencer ‘deserves’ to be punched (and I don’t think he does) is an entirely logically separate question from whether the individual who assaulted him had the right to punch him.

As President of the National Policy Institute which held a post-election event, Spencer gave a speech using the phrase "Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!". I find that phrasing quite repellent. I don't think that the bells it rings are rung by coincidence, but the man who punched Spencer is arguably little better. We all occasionally encounter people with whom we disagree, or whose ideas are so repugnant and divisive that we become incredibly angry. However, punching Spencer wasn't an act of heroism, or even a political act. This was an emotional display of personal weakness. An unthinking response to raised blood pressure, to an adrenaline spike at the sight of someone you hate (which is in itself a problem). It is the same reaction you have when you are six, and another child insults something you value. You bristle and strike them before someone with more reason sits you down and patiently explains (because you're a child) why what you've done makes your action worse than your victim's. There is an enormous logical leap in thinking 'I really don't like that guy' to giving yourself permission to hit him.

We can presume that, given his atavistic reaction to Spencer, the attacker holds opposing ideals. Spencer is reviled for his intolerance of difference and somewhat dismissive view of others’ humanity. The person who punched him, though clearly offended by that, is more akin to Spencer than he likely realised. He used another person as a means, failing to see them as an end in themselves. For what this person saw as a greater cause (humiliating a fascist or making a political point), he dismissed Spencer’s humanity with extraordinary casualness. He revealed a perspective that the equality Spencer so devalues is in fact cheap. If we dislike someone’s views enough, they can be seen as less human and we need not care how they are treated or what happens to them. Tolerant indeed. If you purport to possess principles, but suspend them when you meet someone who holds views you loathe, then you are not principled. There are legal processes for dealing with people like Spencer if and when they step over the line. Thinking oneself Batman and throwing a sloppy punch isn’t one of them.

Spencer says ugly things, but that is still a step away from committing acts of violence. If the assault were a crappy attempt at political dissent, why not stick around and own the action rather than run off into the crowd? If you celebrated Spencer being punched, it may be worth investigating how solidly you maintain your own principles in the face of temptation.