Virginia Democratic Attorney General candidate Jay Jones has shocked and outraged both Virginia and the nation after it became public that he sent heinous messages declaring he wanted a Republican colleague murdered while further wishing death on his children and for them to “die in their mother’s arms.”
The outrage is amplified by the fact Jones is campaigning to be the state’s attorney general -- the state’s top law enforcement officer -- while manifesting ideations of vile politically driven violence. Regardless of one’s political tendencies, such vicious and violent transgressions should be societally intolerable, as well as disqualifying for holding public office.
But Jones somehow remains on the Virginia state Democratic ticket. While several Democrats have expressed muted disgust over Jones’ remarks, none have yet stepped forward to outright call for his removal from the ballot. Virginia’s Democrat candidates for governor and lieutenant governor, Abigail Spanberger and Ghazala Hashmi, refuse to withdraw support for their fellow Democrat even after his comments became public. Spanberger and Hashmi’s refusals to withdraw their support are in a lineup of Virginia Democrats doubling down on support for their attorney general candidate.
Virginia Beach’s Democratic Committee affirmed its continued support for his campaign, in part saying: “We are lined up, ten toes down, ready to organize, mobilize, and deliver voters for Jay and our entire Democratic ticket.”
Virginia’s U.S. senators Tim Kaine and Mark Warner -- both Democrats -- are (so far) both standing by Jones. Senator Warner characterized Jones’ texts as “appalling” and “inconsistent,” but has not clarified his position regarding a call to withdraw from the race. Senator Warner also contributed $25,000 to Jones’ campaign in August. Offices of three Democratic House members who have endorsed Jones -- Reps. Eugene Vindman, Bobby Scott, and Suhas Subramanyam -- have not responded to requests for clarification on their continuing support. Another ranking state Democrat, Virginia House Speaker Don Scott, told fellow Democrats not to be “distracted” by such unimportant things as Jones’ text messages and Democrat-partial media in Northern Virginia, like the Washington Post, has avoided calling for him to exit the race.
It then begs the question: What would it take for Virginia Democrats to withdraw their support for Jones? Just where is the proverbial line drawn for behavior, words spoken, or actions of a candidate to disqualify him for elected office? How much more despicable, detestable, or disgusting would behavior and rhetoric from a candidate have to be before endorsements are withdrawn and the call to withdraw is made?
There can be little doubt that if circumstances were reversed, and it was a Republican candidate who had communicated such violent rhetoric, Democrats would be howling for that candidate’s removal from the race. Under civil circumstances, such comments would end careers or jobs, but instead of being forced off the Democrat state ticket, Jones has found both support and cover.
Craven political responses are insufficient. Gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger said she “spoke frankly with Jay about my disgust with what he had texted… that he must fully take responsibility for his words,” and that she “condemn[s] violent language in our politics.” Lieutenant governor candidate Hashmi made similar remarks.
But such verbal condemnations have no teeth. Organizations and individuals choosing to continue support for Jones, while dismissing or overlooking what he said, instead transmit a message that obtaining political power eclipses ethical boundaries and societal guardrails of decency even minimally expected from government.
When Democrats choose to support Jones, they confirm for voters who they are, what they stand for, and what they are willing to accept to pursue political advantage. That is why this scandal matters. While political differences between members of opposing parties is normal -- even expected -- when a major party decides their candidate calling for the murder of political opponents is bothersome but tolerable, when their leaders issue polite condemnations but will not themselves step up to end support, they do not just cover for that candidate; they consent to a political culture fomenting such behavior.
Is it too much to ask, regardless of political affiliation, that we all not hesitate to call out a candidate -- particularly one running for attorney general as a state’s top law enforcement officer -- for having communicated ideas of murdering a political rival or wishing the same for his children? In Virginia’s case of Jay Jones, that line is now crossed, and regardless of one’s politics, all should understand and support the idea that conveying such disgusting and repulsive ideas is not acceptable for an elected public official. These circumstances go beyond the normal politics of selecting candidates from one party or another and go deeper to what should be common, accepted, and societal ethical standards along with reasonable, but elevated expectations for elected public officials.
This is not just about Jay Jones; it speaks to leadership of an entire state’s Democrat party. If Democrat leaders do not understand that Jones crossed a clear-cut line of demarcation, their continuing support calls into question the entire party’s judgment, character, community standards, and thinking they would bring to governance if elected. If Virginia Democrats cannot draw that line and know Jay Jones has stepped over and beyond it, voters must do it for them for the ‘common and greater good’ of Virginia.
Colonel Chris J. Krisinger, USAF (Ret) is a Virginia citizen and resident. He graduated from the United States Air Force Academy and served in policy advisory positions at the Pentagon and twice at the Department of State. He is a Distinguished Graduate of the Naval War College and was also a National Defense Fellow at Harvard University. Want to continue discussion: cjkrisinger@gmail.com.
Image: PickPik