Keep Violence out of Political Expression

By: Robert Rodgers

Throughout history, their have been many groups that have used violence as a form of political expression. The first two that come to mind for me are the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the Oklahoma City Bombing. In both cases, an activist or group of activists attempted to express their political views by using mass terrorism as the vehicle. I, for one, do not believe that violence, such as terrorism or any other type that physically harms someone, should be considered a legitimate form of political expression. While I do not agree with all the laws in our democratic society, murder is one of the laws I feel very strongly about. While those victims may not have been “innocent” in the eyes of Timothy McVeigh or Al-Qaeda, I feel that those people should not have been murdered. I believe there are other more legitimate and ethical ways to express political feelings and views. Violence opposes some of the fundamental rules of not only society, but civic engagement as well. As Patricia Roberts-Miller notes, it is important to have emotion and passion in political expression, but we must keep out terrorism and violence because they are unethical forms of political action.

In a true democratic society, everyone should have an equal voice. While this does not always hold true, it is still possible to form a political action group and fight for or against a policy or law you feel strongly about. Peaceful protests can be very powerful and they have worked in the past. I believe that activists should be expressing their views towards the policies and rules they disagree with, not the people behind them. No one deserves to die because of what they choose to agree or disagree with. The point of a democratic society is to let different voices and views be expressed, and I believe the best way to express those views is peacefully.

I am not saying that violence is not effective; I am just saying that it is unethical and wrong. Violence and terrorism can be a very powerful expression. It certainly catches everyone’s attention and the media publicizes the actions to the world. Some laws in society are unfair and unjust, allowing certain privileged people to succeed. However, murder is not one of those laws. I strongly advocate people standing up for what they believe in and doing what feels right, but do so in a peaceful manner.

Where is the line drawn then? I feel that if your political expression endangers the life or safety of another human being, then it should not be practiced. If you disagree with government policies, there is no need to bomb a federal building to express your views. Killing others that have different political or moral views, however radical they may be, creates an unsafe and dangerous environment for everyone. Isn’t the whole idea of civic engagement centered on making the world a better place for everyone to live? I’m all for activism and transgression, and I’m glad people are willing to fight, but we must draw the line somewhere, and hurting others is the place. As the popular saying goes, two wrongs don’t make a right. Violence and murder as political vehicles may actually end up hurting more people than it helps. To me, that is not legitimate political expression in a democratic society.