Do the Tea Parties Foment Violence?

That is the connotation that the left in America hopes to pin on the movement, in an effort to discredit all involved. But is this a fair claim? Not according to Michael Knox Beran, who has emerged as one of my favorite commentators on the day's happenings. He brings an impressive command of history to the discussion of contemporary politics and cultural currents. Here's an excerpt from his latest piece, appearing in National Review Online. He takes on those who link the tea party movement to the "angry mob."

The Roots of Violence: blame the social state, not the tea parties

Violence was once the law of politics. In The Growth of Political Stability in England, J. H. Plumb observed that “conspiracy and rebellion, treason and plot” were commonplace in 17th-century England. Yet by 1730, the kingdom was tranquil, and “Englishmen were congratulating themselves on their tolerance.”

Politics became pacific, in England and America, because the Whiggish revolutions of 1688 and 1776 vindicated the principle that neither life, nor liberty, nor property can be taken by the state without due process of law. The American patriots — who knew that the power to tax is the power to destroy — further refined this formula for domestic peace by insisting that there can be no taxation without representation. Where these principles prevail, politics is as a rule peaceful. The victors in a political struggle cannot proscribe their opponents; the losers need not resort to violence to save themselves.