Another Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. Civil discussion and no coarse language please. Side discussions and idees fixes to the sandpits, please.
I’m now using Substack as a blogging platform, and for my monthly email newsletter. For the moment, I’ll post both at this blog and on Substack. You can also follow me on Mastodon here.
John Quiggin 
Charlie Kirk got one thing right
Charlie Kirk, April 5 2023, at a public event of his Turning Point organisation: “The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The second amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The second amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government.”
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fact-check-charlie-kirk-once-205500283.html
The specific argument is complete B/S, a male adolescent fantasy. Armed conflicts between professional soldiers and rugged individuals, or ad hoc militias of them, only end one way. (See: Alamo, Vercors, Oradour, Slovak National Uprising). What he got right is that political violence is not unthinkable. In fact it demands much more thinking than it’s been getting.
It goes without saying that serious violence is bad. IIRC the condemnation of murder and rape is a human cultural universal. The existence of narrowly defined exceptions is also widespread, at least for killing: self-defence, participation in a just war, law enforcement. A political motive complicates the picture, but does not provide a general absolution nor require a universal condemnation. For most of us, political violence raises two important questions: when if ever is it effective? When if ever is it justified? We may have strong priors on these, but not to the extent of a shocked taboo on enquiry.
Thousands of scholars ask these questions about war, “the pursuit of politics by other means”. It is a professional failure not to ask them about political violence short of war, the remaining part of the same continuum, whether carried out by thr state or against it. This includes war (conventional, asymmetrical, nuclear), genocide, oppression, insurrection, civil disobedience, riot, protest, sabotage of property, judicial torture and incarceration, and terrorism. Sub-bellic violence often acts as the prelude to war (Gavrilo Princip) or a coda to it (OAS, al Qaeda). These phenomena are of course investigated, in a fragmented and confusing way. The topic cries out for a systematic approach, per genus et differentiam.
Neo-Marxists go on about “structural violence”, as when qualified women are denied promotions on merit, but you do not need to buy into this rhetorical malpractice to recall that the real thing has been a pervasive feature of most of human history, including recent times. The pacific Swiss fought a civil war as late as 1848. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderbund_War In Germany, the revolutionary Marxist Baader-Meinhof gang suspended terrorist operations formally in 1992, though it had ceased to be a real threat much earlier. The 30-year “Troubles” in Northern Ireland ended in 1998, though their long shadow has not disappeared. The Basque ETA dissolved itself in 2011. We surely have ISIS jihadists floating round immigrant ghettos in Europe, closely watched by a variety of uncommunicative three-letter agencies. Just now they are pretty inactive, after the crushing of their Mesopotamian leadership, but they may make a comeback. Such is life. Since the first pharaohs put on a crown, rulers have rightly feared plots and rebellions, and have put much thought and effort into preventing or crushing them.
What they generally have not worried about is the highly qualified speculations of learned men about such dangers, especially tyrannicide. This exotic crime has been salient in the study of politics for two millennia. The Wikipedia article on tyrannicide mentions Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, St. Augustine, St Gregory Nazianzus, Thomas Aquinas, William of Ockham, Suarez, Grotius, Pascal, Milton, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. It also tells us about lesser writers you have never heard of, like John of Salisbury (in a 250,000-word book dated to 1159). In parallel, the seething cauldron of crime, guilt, hatred, ambition and calculation surrounding unloved rulers has proved irresistible to many playwrights. Regicide is central to the plots of Aeschylus’ Oresteia, Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Hamlet, Richard II and Richard III, Marlowe’s Edward II, and Racine`s Athalie. These authors, of both types, are not eccentric outliers at the fringes of European cultural history but a large subset of its central protagonists. It is the relative absence of the topic in modern times that calls for explanation, particularly as actual attempts on the lives of rulers have not stopped.
Several hypotheses come to mind. Grand theories of history and prehistory built round impersonal forces – natural selection, capitalism, science, demography – push to the margin topics like tyrannicide where chance and individual action dominate the story. Scholars may fear the vengeance of rulers if they come to suspect them of fomenting dangerous thoughts.
Earlier generations of scholars accepted significant personal risks in taking up the subject. Cicero was murdered by Mark Anthony. Aristotle tutored the megalomaniac Alexander the Great. William of Ockham was a contemporary of the ruthless Philip the Fair of France, who kidnapped a Pope and burnt alive the Grand Master of the Templars on trumped-up charges of heresy. Milton was imprisoned in the Tower of London at the Restoration in 1660, but luckily for him, Charles II thought better of a wide purge of Commonwealth supporters and confined his vengeance to the handful of regicide MPs. Men like Philip the Fair understand who is dangerous and who not. The real threat to the king comes not from Hamlet but from Fortinbras, not from Shakespeare but Guido Fawkes. Admittedly, printing and the Internet have made the scribblers more dangerous than before.
Possibly the scholars fear that a dispassionate inquiry could lead them unwillingly to a conclusion that direct action against a particular tyrant is in fact morally required. This would put them in a very awkward and dangerous position. The contingency is alarming, but very unlikely. We would expect that an ecosystem of reasoned discussion would discourage infantilist actions like the 1898 assassination by Italian anarchist Luigi Lucheni of the Empress Elisabeth of Austria, a harmless pinup.
The great majority of plots and rebellions in history have failed. How could it be otherwise? The incumbent disposes ex hypothesi of more armed men, spies, jails, interrogators and weaponry than the rebels initially do, typically less compunction in using them, and a body of loyal supporters. Recent research by Erica Chenoweth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erica_Chenoweth has confirmed this intuitive insight. Violent political movements for change of some sort are typically less successful than their non-violent counterparts.
It is easy to see why. Violence puts off many potential supporters, on both ethical and pragmatic grounds. At the same time, it increases support for the incumbent. In the unlikely event of the plot or rebellion succeeding in its tactical aim (say killing Caesar), it has proved extremely difficult to translate this into successful regime change. The organisational style needed for a successful coup – ideological uniformity, discipline, small numbers, and secrecy – is at loggerheads with the open political coalition-building needed to establish stable rule. The stunning success of the Bolsheviks in seizing power in Russia in 1917 was followed by 70 years of brutal, paranoid and generally miserable one-party rule.
A similar problem arises in the ethical analysis. You are not going to get anywhere starting from an a priori conviction – not a mere bias – that all political violence is wrong. There are admirable people who hold the same of war, but most of us think that just wars do exist, if rarely. In that case we must be open to the possibility of just insurrections and just assassinations – Heydrich comes to mind.
The literature on just war has developed a useful set of benchmarks. Ask Google`s AI and she says: “Key jus ad bellum conditions include just cause (e.g., self-defense), competent authority (declared by a sovereign), right intention (for justice, not gain), and last resort.” Other sources add “having a reasonable chance of success”, and “the end being proportional to the means used”. At first sight, most of these conditions transfer straightforwardly to rebellion and tyrannicide. One exception is competent authority, since the aim is to overthrow it. We can try to develop a theory that the withdrawal of the “mandate of Heaven” is judged by the sovereign people, so in practice we can require a wide consensus that the ruler is intolerable. Avenging crimes against your family, as Hamlet does, won’t do.
Tyrannicide raises another issue, treacherous means, extending ius in bello conditions of banned weapons and tactics. Military lawyers have gone into detail on false flags in naval warfare. Presumably you can more readily justify putting a deposed king on trial than …. on second thoughts, let’s not go there for now. Interestingly, after Stalin’s death, the Soviet Politburo did put Beria on trial as a sexual predator (which he was) not as a mass murderer (which he also was, like his complicit accusers) rather than just shooting him.
This leaves many open questions and points of dispute. It is however clear that as with the laws of war, any plausible just rebellion doctrine will rule against most sub-war political violence. The low likelihood of overall success, and the wide availability of non-violent alternatives, do this by themselves. I would like to see more thought on sabotage of property, given that one of the pillars of modern right-wing authoritarianism is kleptocracy.
******************************************
The general rule on the Internet is to speak your mind freely. This does not apply to the study of political violence, where everybody must consider with care the real dangers of their words for themselves and others. I must very strongly urge readers minded to comment on this post to be at least as circumspect as I have been, in their own interest and that of our generous host. In particular, avoid any mention of current leaders.
Does the Cold War count as sub belli? I pretty much don’t know enough history to say much. (And out of what I did know, I’ve forgotten a lot.) Lately I have been thinking a wee bit about the Cold War, as I have been watching Slow Horses.
I may go so far as to read a Le Carre. One big question that’s coming up is, how much of it was necessary? Does anyone go back and check? Like an audit? (I suppose someone at West Point does.)
The part where we surveil the heck out of each other to find out what’s going on seems okay to me. But as for interfering, I really wonder.
I think I agree – we need more research.
Also, I’m pretty sure that I missed the context here. I am not sure what it is, and I don’t want to guess.
Don’t mention the tyrant. I did it once but I think I got away with it.
Instilling self censorship is just how tyrants operate: a little bit of terror and everybody shuts up. Easy peasy.
For the record, I think that Trump is an idiot.
Recently Paul Krugman said “Hegseth’s speech was morally vile. It was also, however, profoundly stupid” and “there’s a clear family resemblance between Hegsethian stupidity about modern war and Trumpian stupidity about economic policy.”
On the same speech Greg Jericho said “Everyone should take the time to read this speech from Trump. We should not ignore just how f*cking deranged this racist sex pest is.”
The Guardian has a headline; “A critique of pure stupidity: understanding Trump 2.0”
And that’s what we are all having to deal with, a stupid man as President of the USA.
Roger_f,
Yes, I have to say I agree with all that. I could go on and add more but I sometimes go on too much. So, I will leave it at that.
Dan Nexon gets it https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2025/10/the-state-of-the-republic-is-grim :
“I don’t mean “contingency plans for how to handle another shutdown.” I mean plans for coordinating and leading massive civil resistance against an effort to nullify the 2026 (or 2028) election results, responding to a declaration of martial law, and reacting to a military coup.”
Public blogging is not organising the resistance, though the resistance must have an agitprop arm.
Yes, Dan Nexon does it get it. We live in dangerous times. Fascism is on a runaway course.
Climate Change is also clearly on a runaway course.
“Nature is more powerful than politics or economics – and will eventually prevail.
The only thing notable about this part of the speech is that it is too optimistic. It probably is too late to stop its most catastrophic consequences. All countries will have a disorderly and failed transition. Having taken early action will not protect against the global results from all the countries which have not taken action or nearly enough action. Climate change has a global reach.
Then there’s the global multi-pandemic that is brewing along with the collapse of all our health systems and infrastructure.
I agree that we do need to make these plans. (And for the record, I was wrong about the context – I thought perhaps a different authoritarian was the topic.)
I disagree with some of the linked piece. It isn’t the Constitution that failed – it is the people whose job it is to protect it who have failed. (Though the course can still be changed.) From what I can tell, there’s no way to write a constitution that is proof against the sin of dishonesty.
Regardless, I still think it is possible that the judiciary will come through. It just takes a really long time and is very messy. (Sometimes I think I am naive – but I’m not even certain that Congress might not pull its own head out. Weirder things have happened.)
And I don’t know that there is any chance that any other pol could be getting away with all this.
And, I also do not think the military and LEOs will go along. It may all get very rocky though.
Thank you in advance for continuing to keep us in your prayers, or meditations or whatnot.