In the early 1970's, liberal leaders were criticized for their failure to condemn in the strongest possible terms the disruptive activities of radicals, some of whom went so far as to take over campus building, plant bombs and rob banks. Responsible political leaders of all stripes have a moral obligation to restrain the aggressive behavior of the extremes among their followers. Thus did John McCain move to tamp down aggression when anti-Obama sentiment in the fall campaign began to boil with the threats of violence. All societies - particularly those undergoing both rapid social change and economic dislocation - produce angry, violent elements. Every nation has its equivalent of biker gangs and hoodlums. At times, these groups have even come to the point of taking over the coercive authority of the state, often abetted by politicians who were then easily swept aside. Certainly this phenomenon cannot be ignored in the United States. We should be worried when anger begins to crowd out rational discussion of public policies. Democracy weakens when such groups intrude on civil debates. The Second Amendment notwithstanding, armed citizens showing up at meetings with duly elected public officials should be condemned, especially by those staunch defenders of the Constitution, the National Rifle Association. Policy by intimidation is their intent, not self-protection and certainly not open discussion, compromise and balanced representation. Rather than abetting, encouraging or tolerating disruptive anger and threats of violence, leadership demands that politicians lead their followers toward civil conduct. Frank Rich's column in the New York Times expresses this view even more pointedly as does the conservative writer David Frum.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
