Most likely, I disagree completely with you on the assertion that people should not cheer about the death of Andrew Breitbart, the man who deceived millions of people and ruined the lives of thousands who were simply trying to do good work for their communities.
I am perfectly fine with cheering the death of a political enemy.
It’s not classy, but it’s also very understandable. On an anthropological level, celebrating the death or political elimination of a political rival is as natural as people’s primal urge to have sex after someone close dies. If your belief is that someone has destroyed people’s lives or is destructive to society, which, in this case, liberals believe is true of Breitbart, then a non-violent annihilation of a soldier or pawn, let alone a big mover, is natural.
I’m not saying that we should strive to be this way, but, if anything, since Breitbart was a bit of a mensch (respect where it’s due) and believed that it was perfectly OK to attack and celebrate the death of political opponents, I would argue he’d defend your right to do so and probably encourage it. He’d probably be upset he’s the one who is dead but the state of his being alive or death is detached from his opinion on the justifiable celebration.
So yes, I am thrilled that another douche bag is off this planet. There are still plenty of douche bags left to suffer, so one less douche bag won’t be missed. If it’s ok to be sad for the death of some celebrity you don’t know, then it’s ok to be glad for the death of someone you blindingly hate.
I find it comforting looking at things through a more logical standpoint. I’m tired of the human frailty of self deception. People who couldn’t stand the guy are simply lying to themselves, suppressing their true feelings, just to either make themselves feel better about themselves (by proving that they’re better than their political enemy, meaning they are still waging a political battle against the dead person!) or trying to make a signal to society that they are of a peaceful and respectful nature when in truth you’re perfectly fine with the death and maybe a little bit glad that the problem is gone.
I find both of these sad and pathetic. When an honorable fighter celebrates the death of his enemies, he not only celebrates his triumph but the prowess of that enemy. It is shameful to celebrate a victory over someone of far lesser capability and skill as you; but the death of an enemy of great skill should be celebrated. Shrugging the enemy off as nothing would be disrespectful. Where Andrew Breitbart is concerned, that skill was of mass deception. We survived the onslaught of stupid the man spewed throughout his life. That’s triumph enough.
As far as we know, no one killed the man. The man probably committed suicide in the form of alcoholic imbibing, or drugs, or perhaps being an unruly curmudgeon finally took its final toll on his heart. If he wished to whisk himself away from this world and his family, so be it. If he died of natural causes instead of self-inflicted death, then that’s unfortunate for him and his people.
Believe this: he doesn’t give a shit anymore. Leave your lofty customs at the door, people. Stop lying to yourself. You’re thrilled. Admit it.
Think of other historical figures you undoubtedly were glad to hear had died: Osama bin Laden, Pinochet, Hitler. No, Andrew Breitbart wasn’t as vile and evil as any of these, but a diminutive jackass is still a jackass nonetheless. Spare no quarter for people who do little in this world but bring pain and suffering through their works.