Jordan Neely's Death Was Tragic, Too Many Responses to It Just Deplorable
A few times a week I check out the National Review website to get a sense of what is raising hackles among the conservative cognoscenti. The magazine founded by William F. Buckley in 1955 credits itself with defining the modern conservative movement and boasts that it employs “the brightest and best minds in conservative letters.” Editor in chief Rich Lowry is contributing writer for Politico. Editor Ramesh Ponnuru and senior political correspondent Jim Geraghty are contributing columnists at The Washington Post. These credentials a bestow a prima facie claim to respectability.
For the most past my purusal of the magazine is restricted to titles and lead-ins. The number of articles that can be viewed each month without a subscription is limited, and even pieces that begin with promise often deteriorate into doctrinaire cant and partisan hackery comparable in intellectual rigor to the cant and hackey firehosed out at Jacobin, NR’s counterpart on the left.
cant 1 : A corrupt dialect used by beggars and vagabonds. 2 : A particular form of speaking peculiar to some certain class or body of men. 3 : A whining pretention to goodness, in formal and affected terms. 4 : Barbarous jargon. (Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary)
As fate would have it, columns by Lowry, in National Review, and Geraghty, at the Post, both published on May 18, take up topics that have been on my mind: Lowry’s Daniel Penny Wasn’t a Vigilante, and Geraghty’s Millions flowed to Biden family members. Don’t pretend it doesn’t matter, a subject I intend to take up at another time.
The thrust of Lowry’s complaint is that the upshot of the left’s commentary on the death of Jordan Neely “is that conservatives favor ‘vigilantism’ and support it, of course, because it’s a bulwark of white supremacy.” He has a point to some degree, albeit playing too much to the conservative culture of grievance. I would restrict the assertion to some on the left, with the presumption that others among the comrades offer more thoughtful commentary on the incident and reaction to it.
I have been on public transit in circumstances where passengers exhibit aggressive and threatening behavior. The experience is unnerving. Fortunately I have never been present when an incident escalated into physical confrontation and violence. It does happen. Readers may recall the knife-stabbing incident in May 2017 where two men were killed and a third injured on a Portland MAX light-rail train (Meerah Powell, Conrad Wilson, Witnesses Describe Victims' Final Moments During MAX Train Killings, January 29, 2020). You never know who might be armed and what will set them off.
A few years ago I found myself on a MAX train on Veterans Day when two burly fellows of about my age stepped on board. Shabbily dressed, possibly homeless, one white, one black, apparently having celebrated the day with generous consumption of adult beverages, they declared themselves Vietnam vets and launched a tirade of profane abuse at anyone who had not served in the military, assertively questioning other passengers about whether they had been to Vietnam or in Iraq.
The two vets were standing at one end of the car. I was at the doors in the middle. As they confronted individuals near them in an increasinsly aggressive manner, I could not but wonder what if the situation were to escalate to violence and I had just stood there watching from a hopefully safe distance. I used the intercom to inform the train operator that two men were cursing and threatening other riders, trying to maintain a low profile so as not to provoke them to further confrontation, keeping my voice low. I am not sure the operator made out what I was saying, but the vets did. They then directed their vitriol at me. A young fellow standing nearby thanked me and expressed solidarity. Fortunately they were all bluster and got off at the next stop, gesturing for me to come off the train. I declined the invitation.
I want to stress that incidents such as this are rare. I have no hesitation about taking public transit and generally feel at ease on it. I relate the MAX incident to explain why I have some sympathy for Daniel Penny. What I did was not much, but I felt I should at least try to do something. There is no clear-cut right thing to do and not a lot of time to reflect on what to do in these situations.
Jordan Neely had a history of severe mental health issues.
After his mother was murdered by his stepfather in 2007, when Neely was 14, he developed severe depression and PTSD, and also had autism and schizophrenia, according to relatives. He bounced between homes before ending up in the foster care system. In 2013, the year he started riding the train with Espinal a local resident who had befriended Neely], he also began crossing paths with police—telling them he was hearing voices. Shortly afterwards, he became homeless, slipping into a cycle of mental health crises, arrests and hospitalization that would continue until his death. (Wilfred Chan, ‘It’s a failure of the system’: before Jordan Neely was killed, he was discarded, The Guardian, May 12, 2023)
The fact that Neely was mentally ill does not mean that Penny and other passengers on the subway were wrong to feel threatened when he boarded the train shouting “that he was fed up, that he didn't care if he went to prison and that he was ready to die” (Emma Bowman, After Jordan Neely's death, homeless advocates blame NYC's 'dehumanizing' policies, NPR, May 6, 2023). Nor does it mean they were unjustified in feeling obliged to step in before someone was harmed. Penny reportedly approached Neely from behind and placed him in a chokehold, which he held for fifteen mintues. Two other passengers helped restrain Neely. I have not seen any report that indicates Neely actually came into physical contact with anyone, much less attacked them, before Penny stepped in.
The usual suspects from the left, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez among the first, were quick to level accusations of murder, lynching, and vigilantism. This is irresponsible demagoguery. Rich Lowry was right to call them on that. The denunciation would have carried more weight had he not been typically silent about his own comrades and ideological fellow travelers who rushed to proclaim Penny a hero, a samaritan, and even celebrate the killing (Timothy Bella, Conservatives hail Daniel Penny as ‘hero’ after killing man on subway, Washington Post, May 13, 2023).
It is a fair presumption that some in the chorus denouncing Penny are among those who call for the abolition of transit police on the grounds that they make people of color feel unsafe. By now we should all be familiar with police abuse of power, misconduct, bias, and outright racism. Allow me to state the obvious: Elected officials should be held responsible for the quality, training, and accountability of police officers across the board. We should demand better than is now done. Abolitionists, for their part, should explain how they would provide for public safety in lieu of police. Do they advocate stationing a team of trained mental health professionals on every subway train? The absence of both transit police and any viable alternative invites the unhappy outcomes that follow when riders, for good reasons or ill, feel compelled to deal with perceived threats themselves.
In a better world our tattered social safety net would have done more to provide help Jordan Neely needed. Even that might not have been enough. Too many progressives seem unable to grasp that it may not be possible to do everything for everybody. Resources are limited. The best efforts of caring and dedicated therapists, counselors, and doctors may fail to bring about desired outcomes. The best we can do may fall painfully shy of what we feel we ought to do. The situation is made worse by conservatives who resist even a pretense of funding mental health services adequately, some doing so even as they talk from both sides of their mouths to tout mental health treatment as an alternative to gun control in response to gun violence.
Daniel Penny may have acted in a sincere belief that he was protecting himself and others from a clear and present danger, but he held a man subdued by himself and two other people in a chokehold until he died. Maybe he acted with excessive aggression. Maybe the former marine acted in accordance with his training. Maybe Neely’s death was the unfortunate outcome of a tragic incident. In any case, calling Penny a hero goes too far. So does damning him as a vigilante and a one-person lynch mob. With the proviso that details are still emerging, the manslaughter charge seems appropriate. Present the facts for a jury to decide.
Cathy Young at The Bulwark provides additional information about Jordan Neely’s history and the deplorable reactions to his death from both sides of the political divide (The Chokehold Killing: What the Stupid Left-Right Debate Obscures). I had not heard of Young before I began reading her at The Bulwark a few years ago. She soon became a go-to source for commentary on Russia and Ukraine. I consider her one of our finest writers on politics and current affairs.