Opinion - The liberals' license: How the left finds release in an age of rage
Those words from author Elie Mystal, a regular commentator on MSNBC, are hardly surprising from someone who previously called the Constitution 'trash' and urged not just the abolition of the U.S. Senate but also of 'all voter registration laws.'
But Mystal's radical rhetoric is becoming mainstream on the left, as shown by his best-selling books and popular media appearances.
There is a counter-constitutional movement building in law schools and across the country. And although Mystal has not advocated violence, some on the left are turning to political violence and criminal acts. It is part of the 'righteous rage' that many of them see as absolving them from the basic demands not only of civility but of legality.
They are part of a rising class of American Jacobins — bourgeois revolutionaries increasingly prepared to trash everything, from cars to the Constitution.
The Jacobins were a radical group in France that propelled that country into the worst excesses of the French Revolution. They were largely affluent citizens, including journalists, professors, lawyers, and others who shredded existing laws and destroyed property. It would ultimately lead not only to the blood-soaked 'Reign of Terror' but also to the demise of the Jacobins themselves as more radical groups turned against them.
Of course, it is not revolution on the minds of most of these individuals. It is rage.
Rage is the ultimate drug. It offers a release from longstanding social norms — a license to do those things long repressed by individuals who viewed themselves as decent, law-abiding citizens.
Across the country, liberals are destroying Tesla cars, torching dealerships and charging stations, and even allegedly hitting political dissenters with their cars.
Last week, affluent liberal shoppers admitted that they are shoplifting from Whole Foods to strike back at Jeff Bezos for working with the Trump administration and moving the Washington Post back to the political center. They are also enraged at Mark Zuckerberg for restoring free speech protections at Meta.
One '20-something communications professional' in Washington explained 'If a billionaire can steal from me, I can scrape a little off the top, too.' These affluent shoplifters portrayed themselves as Robin Hoods.
Of course, that is assuming Robin Hood was stealing organic fruit from the rich and giving it to himself.
On college campuses, affluent students and even professors are engaging in political violence.
Just this week, University of Wisconsin Professor José Felipe Alvergue, head of the English Department, turned over the table of College Republicans supporting a conservative for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. He reportedly declared, 'The time for this is over!'
Likewise, a mob this week attacked a conservative display and tent on the campus of the University of California-Davis as campus police passively watched. The Antifa protesters, carrying a large banner with the slogan 'ACAB' or 'all cops are bastards,' trashed the tent and carried it off.
Antifa is a violent and vehemently anti-free speech group that thrives on U.S. college campuses. In his book 'Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,' Mark Bray explains that 'most Americans in Antifa have been anarchists or antiauthoritarian communists. … From that standpoint, 'free speech' as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.'
Of course, many of the American Jacobins are themselves bourgeois or even affluent figures. And they are finding a host of enablers telling them that the Constitution itself is a threat and that the legal system has been corrupted by oligarchs, white supremacists, or reactionaries.
This includes leading academics and commentators who are denouncing the Constitution and core American values. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School, is the author of 'No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States.'
In a New York Times op-ed, 'The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,' law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale called for the nation to 'reclaim America from constitutionalism.'
Commentator Jennifer Szalai has scoffed at what she called 'Constitution worship.' 'Americans have long assumed that the Constitution could save us,' she wrote. 'A growing chorus now wonders whether we need to be saved from it.'
As intellectuals knock down our laws and Constitution, radicals are pouring into the breach. Political violence and rage rhetoric are becoming more common. Some liberals embraced groups like Antifa, while others shrugged off property damage and violent threats against political opponents. It is the very type of incitement or rage rhetoric that Democrats once accused Trump of fostering in groups like the Proud Boys.
Members of Congress such as Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) have called for Tesla CEO Elon Musk to be 'taken down' and said that Democrats have to be 'OK with punching.'
Some take such words as a justification to violently attack a system supposedly advancing the white supremacy or fascism. Fortunately, such violence has been confined so far to a minority of radicalized individuals, but there is an undeniable increase in such violent, threatening speech and in actual violence.
The one thing the American Jacobins will not admit is that they like the rage and the release that it brings them. From shoplifting to arson to attempted assassination, the rejection of our legal system brings them freedom to act outside of morality and to take whatever they want.
Democratic leaders see these 'protests' as needed popularism to combat Trump — to make followers 'strike ready' and 'to stand up and fight back.'
For a politician, a mob can become irresistible if you can steer it against your opponents. The problem is controlling the mob once it has broken free of the bounds of legal and personal accountability.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Los Angeles Times
25 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
California voters will decide redistricting in November, escalating battle with Trump and Texas
SACRAMENTO — Ratcheting up the pressure in the escalating national fight over control of Congress, the California Legislature on Thursday approved a November special election to ask voters to redraw the state's electoral lines to favor Democrats and thwart President Trump's far-right policy agenda. The ballot measure, pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other state and national Democratic leaders, is the latest volley in a national political brawl over electoral maps that could alter the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections and the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives. If voters approve the redrawn lines on Nov. 4, Democrats in the Golden State would see the odds tilted further in their favor, while the number of California Republicans in the House could be halved. Newsom initially said that new electoral districts in California would only take effect if another state redrew its lines before 2031. But after Texas moved toward approving its own maps this week that could give the GOP five more House seats, Democrats stripped the so-called 'trigger' language from the amendment — meaning that if voters approve the measure, the new lines would take effect no matter what. The ballot measure language, which asks California voters to override the power of the independent redistricting commission, was approved by most Democrats in the Assembly and the Senate, where they hold supermajorities. California lawmakers have the power to place constitutional amendments on the statewide ballot without the approval of the governor. Newsom, however, is expected later Thursday to sign two separate bills that fund the special election and spell out the lines for the new congressional districts. Democrats' rush to the ballot marks a sudden departure from California's 15-year commitment to independent redistricting, often held up as the country's gold standard. The state's voters stripped lawmakers of the power to draw lines during the Great Recession and handed that partisan power to a panel of independent citizens whose names are drawn in a lottery. The change, Democrats said, was forced by an extraordinary change in circumstances: After decades of the United States redrawing congressional lines once a decade, President Trump and his political team have leaned on Republican-led states to redraw their district lines before the 2026 midterm elections to help Republicans retain control of the House. 'His playbook is a simple one: Bully, threaten, fight, then rig the rules to hang onto power,' said Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas. 'We are here today because California will not be a bystander to that power grab. We are not intimidated, and we are acting openly, lawfully, with purpose and resolve, to defend our state and to defend our democracy.' Republicans in the state Assembly and the state Senate criticized Newsom's argument that Democrats must 'fight fire with fire,' saying retaliation is a slippery slope that would erode the independent redistricting process California voters have chosen twice at the ballot box. 'You move forward fighting fire with fire, and what happens? You burn it all down,' said Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher (R-Yuba City). He said Trump was 'wrong' to push Gov. Greg Abbott to redraw Texas' lines to benefit Republicans, and so was California's push to pursue the same strategy. State Senate Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach), who co-authored the bill drawing the proposed congressional districts, said Democrats had no choice but to stand up, given the harm the Trump administration has inflicted on healthcare, education, tariffs and other policies that affect Californians. 'What do we do? Just sit back and do nothing?' Gonzalez said. 'Or do we fight back and provide some chance for our Californians to see themselves in this democracy?' Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones (R-Santee) said the effort is 'a corrupt redistricting scheme to rig California's elections' that violates the 'letter and the spirit of the California constitution.' 'Democrats are rushing this through under the guise of urgency,' Jones said. 'There is no emergency that justifies this abuse of process.' Three Assembly Democrats did not vote in favor of the constitutional amendment. Jasmeet Bains (D-Delano), who is running for Congress against Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) in the San Joaquin Valley, voted no. Progressive Caucus chair Alex Lee (D-San Jose), and Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay), did not vote. Democrats will face an unusual messaging challenge with the November ballot measure, said Matt Lesenyie, an assistant professor of political science at Cal State Long Beach. The opponents of mid-decade redistricting are stressing that the measure would 'disadvantage voters,' he said, which is 'wording that Democrats have primed Democrats on, for now two administrations, that democracy is being killed with a thousand cuts.' 'It's a weird, sort of up-is-down moment,' Lesenyie said. Trump's political team began pressuring Abbott and Texas Republicans in early June to redraw the state's 38 congressional districts in the middle of the decade — which is very uncommon — to give Republicans a better shot at keeping the House in 2026. 'We are entitled to five more seats,' Trump later told CNBC. Some Texas Republicans feared that mid-decade redistricting could imperil their own chances of reelection. But within a month of the White House floating the idea, Abbott added the new congressional lines, which would stack the deck against as many as five Texas Democrats in Congress, to the Legislature's special session in July. By mid-July, Newsom was talking about California punching back. In an interview with the progressive news site the TN Holler, Newsom said: 'These guys, they're not f—ing around. They're playing by a totally different set of rules.' Democrats in Texas fled the state for nearly two weeks, including some to California, to deny Republicans the quorum they needed to pass the new lines. Abbott signed civil arrest warrants and levied fines on the 52 absent Democrats while they held news conferences in California and Illinois to bring attention to the fight. While the Texas drama unfolded, consultants for the campaign arm of House Democrats in California quietly drew up maps that would further chop down the number of Golden State Republicans in Congress. The proposed changes would eliminate the district of Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona) and dilute the number of GOP voters in four districts represented by Reps. Doug LaMalfa, Kevin Kiley, David Valadao and Darrell Issa. The Democrats agreed to return to Texas last week and pointed to California's tit-for-tat effort as one measure of success, saying the Golden State could neutralize any Republican gains in Texas. Since then, other Republican-led states have begun to contemplate redistricting too, including Indiana, Florida and Missouri. Trump's political allies are publicly threatening to mount primary challenges against any Indiana Republican who opposes redrawing the lines. In California, the opposition is shaping up as quickly as the ballot measure. California voters received the first campaign mailer opposing the ballot measure a day before the Legislature voted to approve it. A four-page glossy flier, funded by conservative donor and redistricting champion Charlie Munger Jr., warned voters that mid-decade redistricting is 'weakening our Democratic process' and 'a threat to California's landmark election reform.' Republicans have also gone to court to try and stop the measure, alleging in an emergency petition with the state Supreme Court that Democrats violated the state Constitution by ramming the bills through without following proper legislative procedure. The high court Wednesday rejected the petition. A wave of legal challenges are expected, not only in California but in any state that reconfigures congressional districts in the expanding partisan brawl. Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) said Thursday morning that a lawsuit challenging the California ballot measure would be filed in state court by Friday evening. He said Republicans also plan to litigate the title of the ballot measure and any voter guide materials that accompany it. And, he said, if voters approve the new lines, 'I believe we will have ample opportunity to set the maps aside in federal court.'


Boston Globe
25 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
California lawmakers pass first of three bills to counter Texas in nationwide fight over election maps
Advertisement California lawmakers say their new Democrat-leaning maps — adding as many as five blue seats — are necessary to respond to what they view as a power grab by Texas House Republicans, who approved a new map Wednesday night that would give their party an edge in winning as many as five new GOP seats in Congress. The Texas Senate is expected to follow suit by Friday, sending the measure to Republican Governor Greg Abbott for his signature. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The California Assembly bill, ACA 8, passed with the required two-thirds vote of 57-20. It was the first of three related measures that were being concurrently debated by the California Assembly and Senate early Thursday. Democrats hope to pass all three bills by Thursday afternoon and send them to Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom, who plans to sign them immediately. Advertisement A short time after the Assembly voted, the California Senate passed its first redistricting bill, AB 604, which outlined the new congressional maps that the voters will be asked to consider on the November ballot. The Senate bill passed 30-9 in a party-line vote. California state Senator Lena Gonzalez, an author, called it a 'reasonable and rational response to the anti-democratic actions of the Republican Party as they attempt to rig our congressional elections.' Senate Republicans argued that California's independent commission is the best way to do redistricting and should not be set aside, even temporarily. 'The ends don't justify the means,' state Senator Tony Strickland, a Republican, told his Democratic colleagues. 'You know this is not good for democracy in California.' California has more hurdles in its process than in Texas, because the state constitution requires that an independent nonpartisan panel draw its congressional maps. Thursday's bills create a proposed constitutional amendment that would come before voters in November, allowing them to bypass that commission and approve the Democratic-leaning maps. 'This isn't politics as usual. It's an emergency for our democracy. And we're acting now to save our future,' Newsom wrote on X Thursday. Republican lawmakers in California tried several parliamentary maneuvers to delay the vote. The Republican leader of the California Assembly, James Gallagher, noted in his speech on the floor Thursday morning that the state's voters weighed in against gerrymandering, through ballot measures in 2008 and 2010, and created the state's independent redistricting commission that aims to draw nonpartisan lines. 'Twice, they told us they want independent redistricting, fair representation,' Gallagher told his colleagues on the Assembly floor. 'You move forward fighting fire with fire - what happens? You burn it all down. And in this case, it affects our most fundamental American principle: representation.' Advertisement Originally, Democratic lawmakers said in the bill that the changes to California's maps would kick in only if Texas or another Republican-controlled state gives final approval to changes in its own map. But they amended the bill Thursday morning to remove that trigger language and any mention of Texas or other states. Democrats were working on a tight deadline because the orders for the special election must be transmitted to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, a Democrat, by Friday to get the measure on the November ballot. Newsom and his Democratic allies in the Legislature insist that they still support the independent redistricting committee process, which was created by voter-approved ballot measures in 2008 and 2010 and is popular with the state's voters. But they argue that their partisan response to Texas is necessary to check the power of Trump, who urged Texas's governor to redraw his state's maps. Republicans hold a 219-212 US House majority with four vacancies. Democratic control would give the opposition power to thwart Trump's legislative agenda and launch investigations into him and his administration. GOP leaders in the California Legislature have argued that Democrats controlling the process have allowed little transparency, even shrouding the identities of the lawmakers involved in drawing the new district lines. 'This is a battle between people and politicians,' Gallagher said in an interview Wednesday. 'The people spoke very loudly in California twice, saying they didn't want politicians drawing district lines, that they wanted the people to have that power. And I think that very deeply ingrained mindset in California voters is going to win out in the end." Advertisement

USA Today
25 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump's pick for New Jersey prosecutor, Alina Habba, is serving unlawfully, judge rules
The Aug. 21 ruling escalates the Trump administration's battle with the judiciary over Habba's appointment. President Donald Trump's pick to lead the federal prosecutor's office in New Jersey, Alina Habba, has been serving unlawfully for nearly two months, a judge ruled on Aug. 21. Trump selected Habba, his former personal lawyer, as the interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey in March. But keeping Habba in that role has proven a challenging task. On July 22, a panel of judges declined to appoint Habba to the role. Attorney General Pam Bondi responded by removing the official who was set to replace Habba. "This Department of Justice does not tolerate rogue judges – especially when they threaten the President's core Article II powers," Bondi wrote in a July 22 post on X. Article II of the Constitution spells out the powers of the presidency. Federal Judge Matthew W. Brann's Aug. 21 ruling that Habba's interim appointment ended on July 1 escalates the administration's battle with the judiciary. Brann wrote that courts can declare Habba's actions since July 1 void. "And because she is not currently qualified to exercise the functions and duties of the office in an acting capacity, she must be disqualified from participating in any ongoing cases," Brann added. Brann is the chief federal judge for a trial court in Pennsylvania. However, he was assigned to handle cases challenging Habba's ongoing role in New Jersey federal prosecutions by the court that deals with federal appeals for both Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The Justice Department, which includes the New Jersey U.S. attorney's office, didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Brann halted his own ruling from going into effect until after the Trump administration had a chance to appeal and see what the higher courts say. Before March, Habba had never worked as a prosecutor. She represented Trump in multiple civil cases in recent years when he was out of office.