A concerning trend is emerging among certain segments of the American left, characterized by increasing acceptance of radical
anti-constitutional views and political violence. This shift is exemplified by figures like MSNBC commentator Elie Mystal, who has openly called the Constitution “trash” and advocated for eliminating voter registration laws and the Senate.
This ideological movement has gained traction in academic institutions and broader society, with some individuals justifying criminal behavior and violence as expressions of “righteous rage.” These modern-day revolutionaries share similarities with the historical Jacobins of the French Revolution – predominantly affluent
professionals who advocated for radical societal transformation.
Recent incidents highlight this troubling pattern. Affluent shoppers have admitted to deliberately stealing from Whole Foods as protest against Jeff Bezos, while others have targeted Tesla vehicles and facilities. On university campuses, confrontations have escalated, as demonstrated when University of Wisconsin English Department head José Felipe Alvergue overturned a College Republicans’ table during a political demonstration.
At UC-Davis, Antifa protesters recently destroyed a conservative display while campus police observed without intervention. This group’s fundamental opposition to free speech has been documented by Mark Bray in “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,” which explains their rejection of free speech as a “bourgeois fantasy.”
The movement has found intellectual support from prominent academics. Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky has written about constitutional threats to democracy, while Harvard’s Ryan D. Doerfler and Yale’s Samuel Moyn have advocated for moving beyond
constitutionalism. New York Times contributor Jennifer Szalai has criticized what she terms “Constitution worship.”
Political figures have contributed to this atmosphere, with
Representatives like Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) calling for taking down business leaders and endorsing physical confrontation. While violent actions remain limited to a minority, there’s been a notable increase in aggressive rhetoric and actual violence.
This phenomenon reflects a broader rejection of traditional legal and moral constraints, with some participants finding liberation in acting outside established norms. Democratic leadership has sometimes viewed these protests as useful tools against political opponents,
particularly in opposition to Trump, encouraging followers to “fight back.”
However, history suggests that once mobilized, such movements become difficult to control. The appeal of directing mob anger against opponents often overlooks the challenges of maintaining boundaries once legal and personal accountability breaks down.
The current situation raises significant concerns about the stability of democratic institutions and the potential consequences of normalizing political violence. While many participants frame their actions as justified resistance against perceived systemic injustices, the increasing acceptance of extra-legal methods and violence threatens the very foundations of democratic discourse and governance.
This ideological shift represents more than just political
disagreement – it reflects a fundamental challenge to established constitutional order and civil society norms. The combination of intellectual justification from academic circles and practical expression through direct action creates a potentially volatile situation that mirrors historical patterns of societal upheaval.
As these trends continue to develop, the balance between legitimate political dissent and destructive radicalism becomes increasingly crucial for maintaining democratic stability and protecting
constitutional governance. The path forward requires addressing legitimate grievances while preserving the legal and institutional frameworks that enable peaceful political discourse and change.