Defending Democracy?
A couple weeks ago I wrote a “Book Report” about Jeffrey Toobin’s book Homegrown: Timothy McVeigh and the Rise of Right Wing Extremism. I expressed confusion about why some angry people with guns might feel they are doing their country a service by shooting innocent people. That confusion remains—and has spurred other questions.
Having read the book, I have a better understanding that some people want to be heavily armed—and fight for the right to be heavily armed—in case their government turns against its citizenry. Whether or not I choose to so arm my household, this outlook at least holds a nugget of logic for me.
During the pandemic, citizens were up in arms—some literally—when governmental powers insisted on people being masked or getting immunized against Covid-19. They were adamant that the government should not tell them what to do. While I, myself, was more afraid of Covid than of government mandates, I can, again, carve out the logic of people who simply don’t want to be ordered about by government officials.
If our government lost its sense of democracy—if, for example, the government began dictating who we can marry, what books we’re allowed to read, which health issues we may or may not discuss with our doctors or which religion is the correct religion—citizens might feel the need, or even the responsibility, to fight such totalitarianism with force. Yet when I look at the leading candidates for president, the one that willingly admits he would weaponize the government against his political enemies is the one many armed patriots support. This particular candidate praises authoritarians like Russian President Vladimir Putin, and plainly states that he, himself, would be a dictator on day one in office.
Now, if you want to install a dictator who shares your point of view on what ails the country and proclaims he will use force to clean up the mess, I see—however faintly—an element of reason. But how can you, on one hand, say you need to be armed in case the government starts dictating to its people, and on the other, support a dictator against whose armed militaries citizens will have no control? Because the dictator will see to that.
A dictator dictates. And can change his mind about what he dictates. Without warning. However well-armed you are, you will not likely be any match for his governmental military forces. We are currently allowed to own guns precisely because we do not have an authoritarian government. Because citizens have a say. So why, I wondered, would angry people with guns support a dictator?
But then it occurred to me—maybe there are two factions of angry people with guns: Those who desire to be fighting in the king’s army, like Darth Vader’s minions, prepared to die for glory regardless of how the dictator might change his mind on a whim. And those who adamantly oppose any kind of dictator, hence stand armed because they refuse to be told what to do. The latter makes some sense, and I’d think this group would actively campaign against the self-proclaimed dictator in his bid for the presidency. (The former is beyond my realm of comprehension.)
From my vantage point, it’s difficult to determine whether or not these two factions actually do exist separately. I rather hope so. And I hope those who don’t want to be told what to do will take great care to protect democracy and ensure that the self-proclaimed dictator is never in a position to force his will upon them.