The Violent Left: What would the Founders Do?

Nationally syndicated “conservative” talk radio host Michael Savage and his poodle, “Teddy,” were recently assaulted while they exited a restaurant in San Francisco. A man followed them from the eatery and mocked Savage for his real surname (“Weiner”) before kicking Teddy and throwing Mike to the ground.

Neither master nor dog, fortunately, sustained any serious injuries—though Savage was “bloodied and shaken.” According to his lawyer, Dan Horowitz, criminal charges will be filed. They are also going to pursue the possibility of having the assailant charged for committing a hate crime on the grounds that Savage was attacked because of his political views.

Savage is but the latest old man in his 70’s to be roughed up by an intolerant, hate-filled, violent leftist bully. Attacks of this sort, and worse, against Trump supporters and those just suspected of being Trump supporters, have been occurring for over a year now. No one is safe, not the elderly, the young, or women.

If one is not on the left, or far enough on the left, then one’s property and person are in jeopardy. This has become common knowledge. And yet, while it is indeed important that all decent people, particularly those, like “conservative” media talking heads, call attention to and resoundingly repudiate this phenomenon at every turn, we’ve reached a point at which mere talk has become inadequate.

We’ve passed this point.

“Conservative” talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and many others deserve credit for what good work they’ve done over the decades. However, the time for getting out from behind a microphone and coordinating and deploying their vast resources for the purpose of resisting “the resistance” that’s been intimidating and pummeling innocents is now.

Of course, I’m not suggesting that Rush and his colleagues should organize an army of right-minded thugs to engage in the same civilization-destroying conduct as the leftist savages who we must counter. But why should massive, organized rallies of the sort that Glenn Beck alone used to effortlessly arrange be out of the question? We can call these “Stop the Violence” rallies, or maybe “Say No to the Intolerant Left,” or perhaps simply, “Resist ‘The Violent Resistance.”

The name that would be given to such hypothetical demonstrations is of secondary importance at this point. They need to be organized first.

Bear in mind, these very same self-avowed “conservative” pundits, radio hosts, and television personalities who are forever invoking America’s Founders have given no indication that they’ve so much as considered assembling these collective assertions of self-defense. This is deeply troubling, for consider:
How do you think Patrick Henry, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and all of those men (and women!) from the founding generation who dared to take up arms against the most powerful empire the world had known up to that juncture would respond if they were the targets of unprovoked assaults because of their politics?

Do you think that they would have resigned themselves, as many of today’s “conservatives” seem ready to resign themselves, to allowing government (the police) to protect them?

A couple of weeks ago, the former Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, made a video to which some conservatives objected strongly. Lynch, they insisted, was calling for violence and murder in the streets. In fact, though, she was doing no such thing. Lynch was indeed calling for activism, street action. Yet her references to violence and death were meant as reminders that earlier generations had shed their own blood and given their lives for their cause.

Now, I am no fan of the corrupt Lynch. She was speaking to her ideological ilk, not the patriotic Americans who are being victimized because they do not subscribe to Lynch’s far left ideology. Still, fair is fair: Lynch was no more calling for violence than I am calling for it now when I remind my fellow Americans that those of our ancestors who took up for the cause of liberty and civilization against tyranny, oppression, and savagery when they shed blood, both their own and that of those who would deprive them and their posterity of their freedom.

The Founders recognized that resistance to tyranny, the safeguarding of liberty, not infrequently requires force.
Patrick Henry is a classic example on this score. “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty,” he declared. “Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”

Nathan Hale, right before being hanged by the British, defiantly said: “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.”

When the British demanded that he surrender, John Paul Jones exclaimed: “I have not yet begun to fight!” Jones expressed the perspective of the Spirit of ’76 when he wrote in a letter to Gouverneur Morris: “An honorable Peace is and always was my first wish! I can take no delight in the effusion of human Blood; but, if this War should continue, I wish to have the most active part in it.”

Captain John Parker, who commanded the militiamen at Lexington, informed his men: “Don’t fire unless fired upon. But if they want a war let it begin here.”

George Washington eloquently remarked: “If we desire to insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War.”

And who can forget Thomas Jefferson’s comments about “the tree of liberty.” The latter, he said, “must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

I think it is clear how Mr. Washington and his friends would react if things were such that it was expected that Martha and the ladies would be peppered-sprayed and otherwise assaulted for merely being suspected of holding certain political views.

Perhaps we should learn from their example.

Jack Kerwick received his doctoral degree in philosophy from Temple University. His area of specialization is ethics and political philosophy. He is a professor of philosophy at several colleges and universities in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.


  1. To quote I think Fed 7? “Men are ambitious vindictive and rapacious.” They would assume this and build a system to check the worst our instincts. Even Federalist No. 10 10 anticipate Marx with natural majorities and minorities based on wealth and income. The whole constitution and a large republic was designed to lessen the chances of socialism or factions based on economics and interest.


    “It was, as I saw it, a case of ‘the chickens coming home to roost.’ …

  3. This fallacy of painting large groups of people as no different than the few individual members who resort to violence is going to lead to all people being “guilty”, no matter what their political views. Who thinks that all conservatives are violent because one conservative shot up bunch of people in a black church? Not many. Have the decency to apply your reason and discriminate between individuals and groups. Characterize a group as X when a significant majority of that group actually does X, not when a few members do X.

    What the Founders do? They’d throw the violent criminals in jail where they belong. It ain’t complicated. Violence is only ever acceptable when needed to prevent other unjustified/illegal violence. That’s it. All people of all political persuasions should (and already mostly do) condemn illegal violence, especially when directed at political beliefs. We’re better than that.

    • This is no fallacy, as you put it, Kerwick is not painting a picture based on a small portion of leftist supporters. It is known that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC paid people to insight violence at Trump rallies, merely because they wanted to portray Trump supporters as violent and bigoted. You can not claim that it is a mere few liberals that preach the violence that the National Committee of your Party is paying rioters to attend conservative rallies.

      Examples of turning the ideals of the few into the ideals of the masses are when people claim that the United States has an inherent gender bias, that the entire country is racist and bigoted. It is simply not true.

      • Proof? Evidence? Bold claims require strong proof. And yes I can claim, until you offer verifiable proof. People are so eager to hate, they will believe anything. Paying people to commit violence would be numerous felonies.

        Here’s another sign you don’t really start with reality — “your party”. How do you know this? Proof? Lazy thinkers abound.

Comments are closed.

Latest from Politics

Thanks for visiting our site! Stay in touch with us by subscribing to our newsletter. You will receive all of our latest updates, articles, endorsements, interviews, and videos direct to your inbox.