Fervent Fringe

Throughout this election cycle, media outlets have carried story after story describing the sharp rhetoric of fringe conservative groups and candidates. In that vein, Politico today highlights the striking statements of a Republican House candidate in Texas who advocated armed resistance in order to recover "our liberties and our freedoms." Although the candidate, Stephen Boden (who is, ironically, a pastor), had enough sense and political tact to qualify his statements by admitting that revolution is "not the first option," he did not retreat from his fundamental belief that "[o]ur nation was founded on violence."Nothing could be further from the truth.

Politico's article details how many of these extremists attempt to ground their militant philosophy in American Revolutionary ideals. As the article also points out, however, most of these purported linkages are nothing more than half-truths and misinterpretations of history. For instance, while the American Revolution was certainly the means by which this nation was emancipated from British rule, it is beyond ridiculous to view that undertaking as establishing an American predilection for violence. To do so ignores both the actual premises of the Revolution -- the 'self-evident truths' stated (one assumes for good reason) in the Declaration of Independence -- and the sustained efforts made by the Founding Fathers to avoid armed conflict with the British Empire. Diplomacy and debate were and are the proper weapons with which to oppose governmental policies with which one disagrees.

Ignoring the obvious paradox inherent in advocating the overthrow of the same government body for which one is campaigning, statements like Boden's are unfortunate because they obscure the beneficial functions of government in an effort to invoke self-serving populist anger. This is distasteful for several reasons. First, it is utterly unrealistic; however 'independent' Boden feels and wishes potential constituents to feel, the truth of the matter is that none are likely ever to forcibly oppose the federal government in a manner that bears any resemblance to a political revolution. Any attempted "overthrow" of the government would violate numerous laws and pose a very real threat to the safety of countless innocent people. Assuming Thomas Jefferson did personally believe that cyclic revolutions were good for the health of a nation (a rather simplistic interpretation that largely ignores the complex nuances of Jefferson's personal politics), that view is anachronistic in today's complex global society. Even if it were not, however, Jefferson's belief was unequivocally repudiated by the Founding Fathers' choice to establish a more stable government than he envisioned. The Constitution they crafted was clearly not "founded on violence."

More importantly, however, such threatening language is disingenuous and poisonous to public debate. Presumably, Boden and those like him -- as candidates for federal office -- would prefer to actually serve in Congress if elected. This would require that Congress remain an established government body. Moreover, it is quite likely that Boden would appreciate the support of his constituents while in office. Presumably, then, this call to violence is only temporary -- a hard observation to accept of violence is indeed fundamental to the American way of life. Boden's is an attempt to tap into disappointment, fear, and displeasure in the electorate, something almost every opposition candidate does in order to secure support for his or her message. The important difference, however, is that Boden and others who employ this sort of rhetoric go too far; they cast government and public servants as inherently and eternally evil, corrupt, and burdensome. This is not necessarily true and patently unfair.

It is often perilously easy for candidates to heap blame on incumbents and the system of government generally. To some extent, this represents the usual (if less than desirable) course of politics; such allegations are standard fare during election season. Rhetoric like that of Boden and other extremist candidates, however, is especially pernicious and goes beyond the pale. Thankfully, for this reason even members of his own party have quite rightly disavowed his assertions. Yet the cumulative effect of such statements during this election cycle has already begun to be seen: dramatic increases in the number of serious threats toward Members of Congress; drive-by shootings at district offices; and physical altercations.

With occurrences like these on the rise, it is more important than ever to remember that this is a self-governing nation and that government is essential to our way of life. As the spokesman for one GOP candidate stated in response to one such incident, "In this country we settle differences at the ballot box." Candidates act irresponsibly when they threaten secession or advise citizens to use their "Second Amendment remedies" against the government. The Founding Fathers, who actually fought wars to establish our current government and to secure the promise of liberty for posterity, would certainly look with disfavor on such callous calls for insurrection.