Political violence must never be tolerated

It takes an authoritarian mindset to choose violence over the ballot box.

Political violence is an oxymoron. It is an essentially authoritarian phenomenon. In his attempted assassination of Donald Trump, Thomas Crooks sought not only to deprive another human being of his life, but also to deprive voters of their right to choose. Tony Benn was correct to describe all war as “a failure of diplomacy”, and this description is similarly apt for the actions of any would-be Gavrilo Princip taking history into his own hands.

We also know from history that the consequences of violence cannot be controlled or anticipated. The conspirators against Julius Caesar had hoped to protect the Republic against the new “perpetual dictator”, but their actions led to its demise. They sought unity, but the murder of Caesar led to civil war and the reign of the first Roman emperor Augustus.

Hannah Arendt understood that political violence cannot be contained, because “the means used to achieve political goals are more often than not of greater relevance to the future world than the intended goals” (On Violence, 1970). We do not as yet know what motivated Crooks, but we do know that the death of Corey Comperatore could not have been his intention. And if his hope was to prevent Trump from becoming President, it would seem that his actions have only made the opposite outcome more likely.

I wrote recently on this Substack about the breakdown of rational political discourse, and the growing tendency of politicians and commentators to assume that all disagreement is evidence of evil. This is a problem that occurs on both sides of the political aisle, although studies show that it is a more predominant tendency on the left. A YouGov survey in 2019 found that 41% of Labour voters and 40% of Remain voters judge those who vote differently in a negative light, as compared to 19% of Conservative voters and 13% of Leave voters.

It takes an excessively inflated ego to maintain that we have all the answers and that the only possible explanation for dissent from our views must be mendacity or malevolence. This is a childish and narcissistic outlook. And yet this behavioural pattern, a form of mass arrested development of the intellect, has seeped from the realm of social media into the mainstream. These are the conditions in which political violence can thrive. When minds are no longer engaged, fists will fly.