“...that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”—Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, 1863
Democratic governments are most often promoted as being governed by the people as a whole rather than a monarch, dictator, or tyrant. Instead of being accountable only to God, a representative is said to be exactly that—a representative—acting on behalf of the people. With these representatives come committees, commissions, and departments making their own decisions, recommendations, and other forms of influence. But even among this mass of bureaucracy, it is still “the people” who supposedly wield authority.
With authority comes responsibility as well as moral blame. It is straightforward to blame a monarch for poor governance. He is the head of his government in theory and in practice. In Western monarchies, the king was understood to be an authority bound by divine law, and thus assassination (regicide) was generally considered to be legitimate under very limited circumstances when a king abused his authority. The king’s culpability for abusive governance could be established without much difficulty.
The Moral Mess of Democracy
Meanwhile, democracy often lacks such a simple causal chain. In the United States, the president is often blamed, sometimes rightfully so, for the state of the economy, spending, regulations, war, and so on. True, he does have a very influential hand in all of these things, but so do countless others. Congressmen and unelected officials play their own roles.
Outside of government itself, there’s a crony mess of PACs, non-profits, foundations, institutes, and individual influencers who all have some hand to play in the outcomes of governance. Since democracy’s prime feature (or flaw) is the election system, it incentivizes an intense propaganda game to convince the masses to vote. Sometimes it’s a vote for an individual politician, often it’s for everyone in the chosen political party. Everyone is encouraged to participate, no matter how ill-informed or disinterested.
Can We Blame the President?
Is it fair to place all of the blame on the president? After all, he has more authority and influence than any other official. He acts as the head of the executive branch. He can appoint officials, negotiate with foreign powers, promulgate executive orders, and steer the “direction” of the country.
But as the current presidential term clearly demonstrates, he is limited by Congress, the judiciary, and bureaucracies when they feel like it. He cannot simply overhaul a corrupt regime. He can blame the “deep state” or the “swamp” to at least some extent. But nonetheless, as president, he has considerable power to warrant at least some blame. But enough to warrant violence?
Can We Blame the Politician?
Is it fair to place all of the blame on the politician? After all, he is the face of his campaign, choosing to run for office, stating his positions and plans. But if things turn sour, he can always point out that he is just one man within the vast bureaucratic state. He had neither the influence nor the time to enact his changes. And besides, he’s a representative of the people, so he has an obligation to carry out their wants, not necessarily his own. All that can be said is that he’s at least partially to blame. But does he have enough blame to justify an attack on his life?
Can We Blame the CEO?
Corporate CEOs wield lobbying power and other forms of influence in a democracy. While it’s true that they are not lawmakers and are bound by government rules and regulation, some corporations certainly have a more mutually-beneficial relationship with the government, especially in tightly-regulated industries like healthcare.
But if that CEO resigned from political influence, the corruption would continue as usual. At the same time, certain CEOs no doubt are at least somewhat responsible for cronyism. But responsible enough to deserve assassination? A concerning number of people think so.
Can We Blame the Activist?
What about political activists? The most influential activists work directly with the people to spread ideas and encourage them to vote a certain way. Sometimes it’s purely through promoting certain politicians, other times it’s much more about the battle of ideas. How much moral blame does an activist have by engaging in debate and promoting his ideas?
With the recent brutal assassination of Charlie Kirk, it seems quite a few people are openly satisfied with his death. Can it be said that by campaigning for Trump and winning over many young people to right-wing politics, he may have a role in some of the bad policies from the Trump administration? Possibly, but his actions are so distant from the effects that no one with even the most miniscule moral compass could possibly justify his murder.
Can We Blame the People?
What about the people? As the true authority in a democracy, every person has political influence when discussing politics, even if they don’t actually vote. Perhaps then, looking at the current condition of the United States, we can blame the people? Not the good ones, of course, only those who voted for the current regime.
If one of the terms of democracy is that Charlie Kirk, a young husband and father known for using words instead of violence, deserves death for what he’s done, then how can any of us expect to escape moral guilt? If we can blame the tyrant for tyranny, can we blame the people (the bad part at least) for democratic tyranny? That seems to be the route we’re headed.
Populicide
Some great thinkers (such as Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn) have written on many perverse incentives of democracy and its tendency to degenerate, but one of the more vicious outcomes we’re becoming increasingly aware of is the tendency of some to consider it righteous to murder others across the political aisle for daring to profess opinions that roughly half the country holds (and most held not that long ago), especially when democracy doesn’t go their way.
The lesson is stark: when moral responsibility is dispersed and accountability is nowhere to be found in a society fueled by propaganda, violence becomes more appealing.
