Political Violence and Its Historical Context

The recent events in Butler County, Pennsylvania, where a young man, Thomas Matthew Crooks, took to a rooftop and fired at a Republican presidential candidate, have drawn attention. Despite the circumstances, many avoid labeling this as an “assassination attempt,” focusing instead on condemning “political violence.”

“Political violence has no place in our democracy,” remarked former President Barack Obama. He later referred to the assassin of Charlie Kirk as “sneaky,” a comment that seems to reflect a growing narrative around political motivations. Just a few weeks ago, discussions emerged regarding a shooting at a Catholic school attributed to a transgender individual, which some labeled as “necessary.”

Not only do those in power fail to enforce order, they can perhaps even condone conditions undermining a stable political framework.

Post-9/11 rhetoric has framed political violence as a phenomenon associated with ideologues and lone actors. This narrative gained momentum as federal agents unearthed manifestos, which were then analyzed and debated among pundits. However, viewing political violence as simply a series of isolated incidents overlooks the broader context. From the American Revolution through the Civil War, and the various riots throughout U.S. history, the country has seen many instances where people resorted to violence for political objectives.

In the aftermath of the January 6 Capitol riots, the left has aimed to portray the right as particularly volatile. Yet, responses to Charlie Kirk’s assassination reveal a troubling trend, with many on the left celebrating the violent act. This suggests that mob violence is an ongoing threat within American political discourse.

The founders of the United States were acutely aware of this issue. In August 1786, violent unrest shook Massachusetts, fueled by discontent among soldiers regarding backpay and increasing debts. This turmoil inspired figures such as Daniel Shays to lead uprisings, which prompted concerns about the potential for mob rule.

George Washington noted, “This sort of thing can gain strength over time unless it is addressed.” James Madison, on the other hand, expressed skepticism, warning that passion often supplants reason in assemblies, reducing them to mob-like gatherings. The Shays’ Rebellion ultimately influenced lawmakers to advocate for a constitutional convention in 1787.

The Present Moment

If the U.S. Constitution emerged from political strife, one might wonder why today’s climate feels particularly chaotic. Classical political philosophy offers insights that can better clarify this confusion compared to contemporary psychoanalysis. The enduring question among philosophers has been how to prevent mob violence and sustain a coherent political order.

In Plato’s Republic, Socrates argues that a society ruled by philosophers would be ideal, suggesting that democracy can lead to tyranny. Mob rule cultivates impulsive citizens, inviting demagogues to emerge under the guise of restoring order. The founders, shaped by such philosophical insights, crafted American governance to balance public interests while restraining the tendencies of mob control.

Concerns from Positions of Power

Historically, discontent among elites has sparked revolts against ruling classes. A notable example is Catiline’s Conspiracy in ancient Rome, where noble discontent led to attempts to upend the Republic. Today, however, the dynamics have shifted. Those in authority might not only neglect their responsibilities but also foster conditions that disrupt peace.

Many types of erosion can be observed in civic life. Cheers for political violence, while easy to dismiss, become troubling when articulated by those in elite positions. Publications pushing contentious historical narratives threaten the moral foundation of governance, while some prosecutors outright refuse to pursue violent offenders.

For years, the powerful have shown indifference to, or even encouraged, the chaos stemming from mob actions in society. This state of affairs has contributed to diminishing trust in institutions, which further erodes social cohesion. This decline indicates a broader decay within Western civilization.

Without a populace capable of self-regulation, genuine freedom becomes unattainable.

The United States has faced significant instances of political violence, but even during the Civil War—a time of deep divisions—there were still efforts at civility and courtesy between opposing sides. Abraham Lincoln highlighted the commonalities of faith and principles shared across the divide. This sense of mutuality somewhat alleviated the strife.

However, today’s divisions seem more entrenched. Political adversaries are increasingly viewed not as fellow citizens but as absolute enemies. Charlie Kirk, for instance, faces relentless attacks branding him a “Nazi propagandist,” despite his willingness to engage in dialogue. The refusal to differentiate American conservatism from foreign ideologies creates dangerous implications, suggesting that dissent could justify extreme measures against opponents.

An atmosphere where citizens perceive political rivals as existential threats weakens the possibility of a cohesive political community. It is often said democracy occurs at the ballot box, but it is often eroded gradually by a loss of public and private virtue, undermining social trust essential to mitigate violence.

The real threat to institutional authority might not be disgruntled revolutionaries but rather the elite themselves. Such an arrangement, while seemingly stable, is likely to be precarious and not sustainable in the long term.

Requirements for Political Order

Political structure necessitates a degree of civic virtue and goodwill among the populace. James Madison, in Federalist 55, discusses how the success of a republic hinges on maintaining social order and legitimacy.

Human nature embodies qualities that demand respect and trust; however, it also carries tendencies towards distrust and degradation. Republicanism assumes these traits are at play more than in other governmental forms.

In essence, republican governance requires self-regulating citizens, tempering passions that could lead to unrest and violence. Without a society capable of self-control, true freedom remains elusive, inevitably fostering mob-like behavior.

Related: How Universities Idolize Political Violence

The conducive conditions for political order were clearly illustrated during the aftermath of Shays’ Rebellion, which led to the formulation of the Constitution. A parallel event occurred in 1791 during the Whiskey Rebellion, when local discontent escalated. Federal forces, under George Washington’s command, quelled this uprising, showcasing the need for strong leadership in maintaining order.

Charlie Kirk’s assassination highlights an escalating trend in political violence. It’s unclear whether our leaders will choose to suppress such dangerous instincts or, conversely, embrace them. The path forward remains uncertain.