This entry is dedicated to–and prompted by–my old friend Ben. In response to last week’s post, he suggested that he’d like to know my thoughts on comparing the United Health murder case with the case of Daniel Penny. 

Ben suggested that conservatives tend to admire the “Dirty Harry” model, being okay with the use of force, even deadly force, against those who dwell on the lower rungs of society’s ladder, while liberals seem to express admiration for those who use violence against the rich and powerful. This got me thinking, “Do conservatives believe in punching down, while liberals believe in punching up?” 

I don’t like people who punch down. These include successful people who are rude to servers, bosses who emotionally abuse and threaten subordinates, and V.I.P.s who are okay with getting special privileges based on their status. I have both liberal and conservative views on issues, but I wouldn’t want to be a person who punches down. 

Let me start by saying that Liberalism and Conservatism are both forces for good. Liberalism pushes for needed change; but change introduces risk. Conservatism resists change in an effort to reduce that risk. Taken to extremes, they can also be forces for against the good. But, overall,  I think even a person who leans heavily to one side is participating in the social process and providing part of the balance we need. 

Without liberalism, we would not have developed democratic republics, the free market, or social mobility. Without conservatism, revolutionary forces would have toppled every stable government and the whole world would be Russia or Communist China. We need the status quo so that we know where we stand while we work for rational change. It’s not a clean process. Conservatives will resist change too fiercely, liberals will demand change too quickly. As we move forward, though, left and right tend to keep us safely in the middle, just as our left and right hands do on the steering wheel of a moving vehicle. 

Back to Daniel Penny. A quick summary: Jordan Neely boarded a New York Subway car and behaved in a manner that drew attention from other passengers, yelling, throwing things, and expressing suicidal thoughts. Penny, a former marine and passenger on the train, placed Neely in a chokehold. Two other riders reportedly assisted in subduing Neely. Penny maintained the hold until Neely was unresponsive. Neely was later pronounced dead. Penny described Neely’s behavior as “threatening.” 

At Penny’s trial, passengers testified that they feared Neely would attack them, but also that Neely did not assault anyone during his outburst. The Medical Examiner ruled that the chokehold caused Neely’s death, but also that she did not await a toxicology report before ruling. A second medical expert testified that K2 (“Spice”) intoxication, schizophrenia, and a sickle cell crisis were also factors. Penny was acquitted of wrongdoing by a jury. 

In both cases, a civilian male killed another civilian male. Um… That’s about it for similarities. 

As to the differences… In one case, victim and alleged killer were both of the same social strata, in the other, one was presumably middle class and self-supporting, one was mentally ill and homeless. In the first case, a man allegedly chose a specific victim, acquired a lethal weapon, traveled to a specific location where he could find the victim, and made a successful attempt to kill the victim. In the second, a man reacted to a situation he did not expect, with a victim he did not know, and, tabling the question of whether or not his reaction was reasonable, he did not intend to kill. 

So… was Daniel Penny punching down? Certainly he was in better physical condition than Neely. Certainly he held a more favored position in society than Neely. Penny had the power, Neely did not. Or did he? Neely had the power to instill fear, as testified by his fellow passengers. Penny had reason to consider Neely a threat to safety–his own and that of others. And it’s not trivial that Penny, a former Marine, was trained to act decisively when a threat presented itself. 

Was Luigi Mangione punching up? While rich himself, he was probably not as rich as Brian Thompson. Whether he was physically stronger is irrelevant. Mangione had a gun. He had the power in that situation. A few members of Congress have argued that Thompson theoretically had more power, because he had the power to approve or deny millions of insurance claims. Denial of those claims can be considered a kind of violence. So Thompson could also be considered a threat. 

It doesn’t wash for me as an equivalence, though. Thompson was, at the end of the day, an employee. Without him, United Health continues, driven by the same policies that drove it under his leadership. United Health will still deny claims. People will still go bankrupt. Thompson did not present an immediate, credible threat to the physical safety of his alleged killer, and what power he did have to harm was governed by policies and procedures over which Thompson himself had only limited control. 

My final answer? Penny was not punching down. He responded to a situation and, right or wrong, tried to be a force for good. Mangione (allegedly) planned and executed an assassination against a target who, there in the moment, had no facility for self-defense. Mangione was not punching up. 

As to Ben’s assertion that conservatives are prone to like “Dirty Harry” types, and its corollary that liberals are prone to admire violent radicals (there’s a lotta Che Guevara T-Shirts out there!)… I tend to agree. 

Conservatives, after all, support the status quo. They have a high level of frustration toward, and sometimes fear of, those who threaten it. They’re going to admire someone they see as a man of action who took a stand against a guy who was scaring people. Liberals, conversely, want to see the weak and unfortunate get their fair shot, so they might have admiration–grudging or otherwise–for someone who strikes a blow against the establishment that’s not helping those people. 

Where do I stand? If Mangione is guilty, then he cannot roam free in our society. He is a threat to anyone that his tortured brain conceives as a target. I feel differently about Daniel Penny. I don’t see him as a credible threat to others, not even others who are homeless and mentally ill. I think it’s possible that he over-reacted in a specific situation; but, then again, I think it’s also possible that he did not. A jury found that he did not. 

I agree with at least part of New York City Mayor Eric Adams’s statement that our mental health services are failing us. I think that Jordan Neely, in the state he was in, should not have been in a subway car that day. It is not Daniel Penny’s fault that Neely was there. I’m not sure it’s anyone’s fault. I just know that Neely’s presence that day was detrimental to Neely and everyone around him. 

Ultimately, I think the plight of people like Neely is one that both liberals and conservatives own a piece of. Liberals have the ideas that might help people like him, so that don’t have psychotic episodes on subway cars. Conservatives have the ideas that make sure that, if someone is behaving dangerously, others around him might be protected. It would be helpful if the two sides could find a way to see to it that we help the Neelys of the world without scaring bystanders, and that the Pennys of the world aren’t put in the position of having to make judgment calls about deadly force. 

Anyway, thanks, Ben, for giving me something to think about.