Despite the American political and media class falling over itself (in Joe Biden’s case, probably literally) to promote the key talking point from Donald Trump’s latest political rally that ‘political violence is never the answer’, we decided to ask ChatGPT if that was, in fact, true.
No surprises for guessing what happened.
You can read the brief conversation with New Matilda on ChatGPT’s site here, or it’s republished below. And yes, we also noticed that the list doesn’t include Joe Biden’s financial support for and rubber-stamping of a genocide in Gaza. The list isn’t meant to be exhaustive.
NEW MATILDA: Hey Chat, New Matilda readers are wondering if you could please document (maybe in a timeline format) all the political violence that American governments and American leaders have been responsible for?
ChatGPT: Creating a comprehensive timeline of political violence associated with American governments and leaders is a complex task due to the extensive history and numerous events involved. Below is a high-level overview highlighting key instances from various eras:
19th Century
- 1830-1850: Indian Removal Act and Trail of Tears – President Andrew Jackson’s policies led to the forced relocation and deaths of thousands of Native Americans.
- 1846-1848: Mexican-American War – President James K. Polk’s expansionist policies resulted in significant loss of life and territorial changes.
Early 20th Century
- 1898: Spanish-American War – U.S. intervention in Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines led to widespread violence and significant casualties.
- 1903: Panama – U.S. supported Panamanian independence from Colombia to secure rights to build the Panama Canal, involving military intervention.
- 1917-1918: World War I – U.S. entry under President Woodrow Wilson involved extensive military engagement and casualties.
Mid 20th Century
- 1945: Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – President Harry S. Truman authorized the atomic bombings, resulting in immense civilian casualties.
- 1950-1953: Korean War – U.S. military involvement under President Harry S. Truman and President Dwight D. Eisenhower led to large-scale conflict and civilian deaths.
- 1953: Iran Coup – CIA-backed coup to overthrow Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, installing the Shah, resulting in political repression.
- 1961: Bay of Pigs Invasion – Failed CIA-backed attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro in Cuba.
- 1964-1973: Vietnam War – Prolonged conflict under Presidents Johnson and Nixon, causing millions of deaths and widespread destruction.
- 1965: Dominican Republic – U.S. military intervention during a civil war to prevent the rise of a communist government.
Late 20th Century
- 1980s: Central America – Support for Contra rebels in Nicaragua, military dictatorships in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras led to widespread violence and human rights abuses.
- 1983: Invasion of Grenada – Military intervention to overthrow a Marxist government.
- 1989: Invasion of Panama – Operation Just Cause aimed at deposing General Manuel Noriega.
21st Century
- 2001-Present: War in Afghanistan – Initiated in response to 9/11 under President George W. Bush, with ongoing conflict leading to significant civilian casualties.
- 2003-2011: Iraq War – Initiated under President George W. Bush based on claims of WMDs, leading to extensive violence and instability in the region.
- 2011-Present: Libya – NATO-led intervention under President Obama to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi, resulting in ongoing conflict and instability.
- 2015-Present: Yemen – U.S. support for Saudi-led intervention contributing to humanitarian crisis.
Recent Events
- 2020: Assassination of Qasem Soleimani – Drone strike ordered by President Donald Trump, escalating tensions with Iran.
This timeline includes major instances where U.S. policies and actions led to significant violence and political upheaval. For a more detailed and nuanced exploration, each event should be studied in its historical context, considering the motivations, consequences, and perspectives of various stakeholders involved.
NEW MATILDA: Yeah, that’s what I thought… political violence sometimes IS the answer. Thanks Chat.
ChatGPT: You’re welcome. Political violence is a complex and contentious topic, with many different perspectives and interpretations. If you have any more questions or need further assistance with anything else, feel free to ask.
NEW MATILDA: While I’ve got you Chat, is it possible that when people like Joe Biden say ‘Political violence is never the answer’, they actually mean ‘Political violence directed against us is never the answer’.. but it’s fine directed against everyone else’?
ChatGPT: It’s possible that statements like “political violence is never the answer” can be seen as reflecting a double standard, especially when evaluating the history and actions of any nation, including the United States. Such statements are often interpreted differently based on the context in which they are made and the historical actions of those making them.
Key Points to Consider:
- Official Stance vs. Historical Actions:
- Official Statements: Leaders often condemn political violence to uphold a stance of law and order, democracy, and diplomatic resolution.
- Historical Actions: The history of any nation, including the U.S., may show instances where political violence or military intervention has been employed, sometimes justified by leaders as necessary for national or global security, humanitarian intervention, or other reasons.
- Context and Perspective:
- Domestic vs. International: Statements against political violence are often directed towards domestic audiences to discourage violence within the country. The same leaders might support military interventions or actions abroad under different pretexts.
- Political Messaging: Leaders might use such statements to convey a message of moral high ground or to align with international norms and values, even if their actions in different contexts suggest otherwise.
- Public Perception:
- Criticism and Skepticism: There is often public and scholarly critique of perceived double standards, where domestic condemnations of violence do not align with international actions.
- Cynicism: Some may interpret such statements cynically, believing that leaders apply different standards to themselves compared to others.
Examples:
- Domestic Policies: When leaders like Joe Biden say “political violence is never the answer,” they may be referring specifically to violence within the U.S., such as the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021.
- International Actions: Conversely, military interventions in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya are often justified on grounds of security, democracy, or humanitarian intervention, which can appear contradictory to the blanket statement against political violence.
Conclusion:
The perception that leaders may mean “political violence directed against us is never the answer” while tacitly approving or justifying it in other contexts is a reflection of the complexities and contradictions inherent in political rhetoric and actions. It’s important to critically analyze both the statements and the actions of leaders to understand the broader implications and intentions behind their words.
NEW MATILDA: Yeah, that was a rhetorical question Chat. But thanks anyway.
ChatGPT: I understand, and I’m glad to assist. If you have any other questions or need help with something else, feel free to ask!
Donate To New Matilda
New Matilda is a small, independent media outlet. We survive through reader contributions, and never losing a lawsuit. If you got something from this article, giving something back helps us to continue speaking truth to power. Every little bit counts.
