
The liberals' license: How the left finds release in an age of rage
'We should replace our piece of crap Constitution.'
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.
Hashtags

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


Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Supreme Court Unanimously Greenlights Lawsuit Over FBI's Botched Raid
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday that an Atlanta family whose home was mistakenly raided by the FBI in 2017 can move forward with their lawsuit, granting them a new day in court. The decision stems from a pre-dawn incident in which an FBI SWAT team broke down the family's front door, deployed a flashbang grenade, and pointed weapons at Trina Martin, her then-boyfriend Toi Cliatt, and her 7-year-old son—only to realize moments later they had entered the wrong house. Although the agents quickly apologized and relocated to the correct address—blaming a GPS error for the mistake—Martin and Cliatt were left with emotional trauma and a damaged home. Their lawsuit against the federal government, alleging assault, false arrest, and other claims, was initially dismissed by lower courts. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the agents were protected under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which prioritizes federal law over state law. But Martin's legal team, backed by advocacy groups across the political spectrum, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that such protections should not shield federal agents from accountability in clear cases of harm. The Court's decision reverses the lower rulings and revives a debate on law enforcement oversight and federal immunity. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.

Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
I served in the Marines. Sending them to Los Angeles is wrong.
I'm a naval corpsman and combat veteran who spent my enlistment service with the Marine Corps. I wore the uniform with pride — not for personal recognition and not out of political alignment but to serve a greater purpose: upholding the Constitution of the United States. I've been in combat zones. I understand the realities of armed conflict and the weight of decisions made in that environment. The oath I took — like the oath taken by countless others — was not a short-term commitment. It didn't end when my deployment was over or I returned my uniform. Our pledges remain active and still guide our responsibilities as citizens and former service members.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Letters to the Editor: If Trump is so against illegal immigration, why doesn't he bolster legal channels?
To the editor: I have been closely following the recent unrest in Los Angeles and thought Mark Z. Barabak's column was the best analysis of President Trump's mishandling of the protests against the ICE raids ('Putting the bully in bully pulpit, Trump escalates in L.A. rather than seeking calm,' June 9). Barabak so correctly wrote that Trump was 'launching an assault on the Constitution and the limits of presidential power.' In terms of the two subjects of the "bully pulpit" and presidential powers, I am baffled why pundits in the media have yet to point out an omission in Trump's harsh anti-illegal-immigrant agenda. If he is so hardline against undocumented migrants who break laws to come here, why hasn't he used his pulpit and his presidential power to honor all of the prospective immigrants in Mexico and the Central American countries who have gone through the right channels by obeying the immigration laws and have been on waiting lists for several years to come to the U.S.? With the stroke of a pen, he could grant them automatic green cards and a fast track to citizenship for obeying our immigration laws, which would in effect benefit his own public uncompromising stance against undocumented immigrants. The bottom line is that Trump is ignoring a policy that would actually highlight his administration's stance on adhering to legal immigration. Salvador Montoya Ortega, Bakersfield This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.