Left or right, louts poison our public life

In 1960, historian David Donald made a speech, later published as an essay, titled "An Excess of Democracy: The American Civil War And The Social Process."

The centennial of the war between North and South, which killed at least 620,000 soldiers, was approaching. Professor Donald wanted to take an expanded look at the causes of the conflict and reach beyond slavery.

The 1840s and 1850s, Donald explained, were decades of rapid national growth accompanied by major changes in American life. Eight states joined the union, including Texas, Florida and California, in the two decades before the war.

American cities grew at a frenzied pace. Chicago and Buffalo doubled in size. New York, 515,000 people in 1850, added almost 300,000 residents in the next decade.

Rapid fortunes were made from manufacturing and transportation in the East, cotton and rice in the South, mines and the open range in the West.

[The jungle of political suspicion]

"A new society of plenty," wrote Donald, "with abundant opportunities for self-advancement, was bound to leave its hallmark on its citizens."

Central to this era's "social process" was a decline in order, the loss of respect for tradition and changes in the political landscape as the Whig Party disappeared, replaced by the Republican Party, hostile to the expansion of slavery while competing with a Democratic Party accommodating slave-holding states.

The electorate was changing too as virtually all white American males became eligible to vote.

American elections had been partisan since the early days of the republic, but now the partisan divide became a canyon. The debate over slavery, festering since the nation was born, was not just conducted in words.

In 1856, Congressman Preston Brooks of South Carolina caned Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts senseless on the floor of the Senate after Sumner denounced slavery.

In Donald's analysis, "Simply because Americans by the 19th century suffered from unrestricted liberty, they were increasingly unable to arrive at reasoned, independent judgments upon the problems that faced their society."

He continued: "The permanent revolution that was America had freed its citizens from the bonds of prescription and custom, but had left them leaderless… Never was there a field so fertile before the propagandist, the agitator, the extremist."

Many of the propagandists, agitators and extremists turned to politics, sometimes inside the electoral system, sometimes outside.

Nobody did more to bring about the Civil War than abolitionist John Brown, a failed sheep raiser, failed farmer, who had never been elected to anything — and was proud to say he had no respect for the known political process, and answered only to God.

Historian Don Fehrenbacker, a contemporary and peer of Donald, said of Illinois in the 1850s "political discussion filled the newspapers, extended from pulpit to saloon, and fell like monsoon rains from the lips of countless stump orators."

A third historian, Roy F. Nichols, noted "the baneful influence of elections almost continuously in progress, of campaigns never over, and of political uproar endlessly arousing emotions."

Political candidates who took to the public stage faced persistent verbal abuse. During a debate with Democrat Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln became so annoyed by a group of women heckling him from their perch on a building overlooking the debaters that he abandoned his script and demanded their silence.

[End the partisan warfare on health care]

By now, it should be clear why I have gone to such length to describe the years before the Civil War: They are reminiscent of the time we live in. The rapid economic change, the social upheaval, the rancorous partisanship, the loud voices denouncing compromise, and yes, the violence.

Tragically, domestic political violence is becoming institutionalized here in the 21st century.

Political scientists, sociologists and activists routinely bemoan the lack of public participation in our democracy.

I'm taking a contrary view — there is too much participation, too much participation by people who are angry, frustrated, disappointed and determined to act out their internal drama on the political stage.

One morning they look at themselves in the mirror and decide "I know how I'll become somebody — through politics!" That evening they are at a town hall or rally — screaming.

Some are on the right, some on the left. Right (bully boys who come to anti-Trump demos to thump protesters' heads) or left (Berkeley anarchists in black who destroy property and stifle free speech) these people are not acting as citizens when they become political actors.

They are disruptive louts — and sometimes criminals. James T. Hodgkinson, who shot up the Republican congressional baseball practice, provides Exhibit A.

Men like Hodgkinson should erase politics from their minds — immediately stop writing letters to the editor for one thing — and go back to what they really do well — pounding shots, smoking dope, watching televised sports, exchanging internet insults, complaining about their wives, children and boss.

Having internalized an excess of democracy, they have no constructive role in public life.

Michael Carey is an Alaska Dispatch News columnist. He can be reached at mcarey@alaskadispatch.com.

The views expressed here are the writer's and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@alaskadispatch.com.