Bob S. blogs about an exchange between Texas Congressional candidate Stephen Broden and interviewer-unit Brad Watson, n which Watson tries to represent the candidate as a violent extremist:
Watson: “So you would include a violent overthrow of the government by saying, if the framers said that don’t work, revolution?”
Broden: “No, I would say that to whatever extent that we can alter, or adjust, or abolish it –”
Watson: “Well, what does by any means necessary — doesn’t that include violence?”
Broden: “Well that’s part of the scenario, but that is not the first option. And it obviously wasn’t the first option with the Declaration of Independence.”
Watson: “So you would include some kind of violent overthrow of the government by including revolution?”
Broden: “It is not the first option –”
Watson: “It is an option, though, in your eyes –”
Broden: “The first option is to alter it or abolish it, it is a part of the scenario. And we as Americans must understand that our founding fathers included that in the scenario.”
Watson: “But violence is an option as you view –”
The correct response to this kind of silliness is "it's never an option in your worldview?"
There's a disturbing undercurrent in the modern first world of seeing all violence as inherently unacceptable. Of thinking that all problems can ultimately be solved with enough talking and turning of cheeks. And worst of all, thinking that governments are controllable and under control as long as there are elections, and that elections are all we could ever need to keep ourselves free.
There's nothing Mr. Watson would fight for? He'd allow a government to throw away the Constitution and do as it will, and would condemn anybody who would resist it by force? He regards the use of force as completely off the table--a greater evil than enslaving a nation? Then he's the despicable extremist, not Broden.