Presidential Assassinations, the Dark Side of American Politics, Can Destroy Democracy
July 17, 2024
The use of force, including assassination and other forms of lethal political violence, as a means of altering governmental regimes and political systems—tyrannicide, regicide, and revolution—was part of the warp and woof of ancient politics and a central concern to the Framers of the Constitution. America, after all, was founded on revolution. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention, therefore, sought to create a republic sufficiently responsive to the will of the people to facilitate peaceful political reforms, which would eliminate the perceived need to resort to violence, the dark side of politics, to make changes.
John Adams, a child of the Enlightenment—and, with Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, part of the Holy Trinity of the founding era—spoke for his generation when he declared, “tyranny begins when frequent elections end.” Thus, the Framers provided for frequent elections at regular intervals, which empowered voters to create plans and campaigns to usher in peaceful change when they thought it was required.
Franklin explained to the Constitutional Convention that the power to impeach an errant president was necessary; otherwise, “there would be no recourse but to assassination.” Jefferson asserted that government officials should be “bound by the chains of the Constitution,” precisely because those who wielded power were eyed suspiciously. James Madison, Father of the Constitution, wrote eloquently in The Federalist Papers of the various ways that checks and balances would restrain officials and encourage adherence to the will of the people. The Framers’ assertions, moreover, that a president would be amenable to the judicial process and the provisions of the criminal justice system, aimed to alleviate the fear that they had created an embryonic monarchy, which would have placed the president above the law.
In sum, those who founded our nation and wrote the Constitution, keenly aware of the destructive capacity of violence as a weapon for undermining and, indeed, destroying democracy, sought at every turn to signal to American citizens that the system they designed had rendered obsolete the need to use force to make political and policy changes. And yet, after nearly 250 years of constitutional governance, in the wake of a Civil War, the unforgivable treatment of Native Americans and Black Americans, an insurrection on January 6, 2021, not to mention the fact that of the 22 men who have served in the White House from 1900-2024, eight have been the victims of assault, we bear witness to the perpetuation of violence as a weapon of political change.
Political violence is the scourge of democracy, a system grounded on the consent of the governed, propelled by reasoned discussion and debate undergirded by truths, facts, and evidence. Violence, including assassination, undermines the democratic predicate of compromise and peaceful transitions of power, based on the premise that half a loaf is better than none. Democracy requires acceptance of electoral results, without which the country descends into a deep spiral of chaos and interminable violence.
As of this writing, we don’t have an explanation of the motives of the shooter who attempted to assassinate former President Donald Trump, whether politically inspired or the work of someone who had been bullied throughout life and sought recognition, but the outrageous act may well affect the outcome of the 2024 presidential race. Previous assaults on presidents and presidential candidates have left a big footprint on America’s electoral history.
President Richard M. Nixon acknowledged that he could not have defeated Robert F. Kennedy in the 1968 presidential election. American history changed because Kennedy was assassinated. If John Wilkes Booth had not murdered President Abraham Lincoln, our Poet President likely could have facilitated the recovery of the nation torn apart by the Civil War, through a forgiving spirit and genuine enforcement of the Reconstruction Acts, rather than their disregard by his successor, Andrew Johnson.
In a nation deeply polarized by political differences, it is imperative for citizens to reject violence as a justifiable means to an end. Such assertions represent a complete rejection of democratic principles and values, and certainly are not the hallmark of a patriot. At this juncture in American politics, political leaders bear the responsibility to tone down their rhetoric, abandon reckless and false claims that may inspire violence, and, above all, they absolutely must declare, publicly, their own opposition to the use of force. Responsible leadership requires it.
-David Adler