Tensions on Capitol Hill exploded this week with several heated moments, including one incident of alleged physical violence, leading experts to draw comparisons between the polarization in the years preceding the Civil War to current Republican divisions in the country's highest ranks.
Distinguished professor of history at American University Allan Lichtman remarked on the recent Capitol Hill quarrels, noting that the heightened tensions are "quite remarkable" given the relatively long history of civility in the halls of Congress.
BURCHETT DOUBLES DOWN ON MCCARTHY ASSAULT CLAIM: 'SPIRALING OUT OF CONTROL'
Lichtman also noted that the intraparty nature of the conflicts is the most significant difference from the violence of the 1800s, saying that a few have "involved members of the same political party."
According to professor of history at Yale University Joanne Freeman, who authored The Field of Blood: Violence in Congress and the Road to Civil War, the recent incidents reflect a "beyond fractured" GOP. The tendency to engage, or almost engage, in violence for party members is a "testament to the nature of that party," she said.
On Tuesday, former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) was accused of elbowing Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) in the kidney. Burchett had notably been one of the eight Republican lawmakers to vote for McCarthy's ousting. Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) stood up during a committee hearing to physically fight Teamsters President Sean O'Brien, who had previously challenged him on social media. The two men were only stopped by Sen. Bernie Sanders's (I-VT) intervention.
In another show of volatility, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) and Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) got into a shouting match during a hearing later in the day, arguing over his investigation of President Joe Biden's family for a large loan, among other things, despite having made a similar loan to his own brother.
"You look like a smurf here just going around and all this stuff," Comer shouted during the exchange.
Lichtman explained the incident between McCarthy and Burchett exemplified that "the resentments run deep in the Republican Party over the chaos of the last several months with respect to the speakership," referring to the former's removal after just nine months as speaker of the House with a slim majority.
"All of these incidents show a lack of respect for the institution of Congress," said Freeman.
Her book, published in 2018, details the significant violence and tension within the halls of Congress in the 1800s, which ultimately culminated in the Civil War. In the book, Freeman discusses Southerners "at that time who were pretty much willing to do anything to protect" what they referred to as the practice of slavery.
"They typically used violence on the floor of Congress to intimidate their opponents into silence for compliance," she explained, noting that they didn't have much regard for the rules or decorum.
According to her, "What we're seeing right now among some Republicans on the hill is at least an echo of that."
Specifically, in Mullin's situation, she referred to his comments after the fact, in which he defended his conduct. "He has said repeatedly that his constituents would want him to do that," Freeman said.
Addressing the almost-altercation, Mullin said Tuesday, “People ask me today is this becoming of a U.S. senator. I was like, ‘I’m a guy from Oklahoma first.’ In Oklahoma, you don’t run your mouth like that, and if you do run your mouth like that, you’re expected to be called out on it."
He also referred to the infamous caning incident in 1856 when Democratic Rep. Preston Brooks used his cane to attack Liberal Republican Sen. Charles Sumner at his desk in the Old Senate Chamber. The event preceded the Civil War and reflected the relatively frequent violence that took place in the legislature leading up to the war.
"You used to be able to cane," Mullin said.
Joshua Huder, a senior fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University noted that "the recent frequency is unusual." In addition to the three events on Tuesday, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) made headlines in January when he appeared to lunge at Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) during the lengthy series of ballots to elect McCarthy speaker of the House. The event may have been dismissed as an isolated case due to high tensions, but Tuesday's rash of threats and violence has made some reconsider.
"It tracks with decades of declining civility and comity in Congress. It’s become more normal rather than a one-off event we could casually dismiss," Huder said. "Clearly it’s far more normal than it has been in several generations."
Others echoed the sentiment that such a growing proclivity for violence is a problem somewhat unique to the Republican Party, particularly in its higher ranks. George Washington University professor of political management Matthew Dallek pointed to the more hard-line factions of the party, such as the tea party or the House Freedom Caucus, claiming these groups tend to "view any compromise as really traitorous." And, he said, "those divisions within the Republican Party have gotten worse."
This explains why the Republican Party has been less than functional, she noted, explaining it lacks discipline and a sense of shared mission among conference members.
Lichtman similarly claimed "civility has broken down" specifically within the Republican Party.
However, Jonathan Turley, a professor at GWU Law School, slammed the "selective memory that becomes evident in moments like this one."
According to him, violence isn't confined to one side. "Our country has been ravaged by violence on both the left and the right for years," he explained, pointing to examples such as "anti-police riots in cities like Portland to the Jan. 6 riot in Congress."
Huder echoed the bipartisan nature of recent violence, saying, "It’s part of a more general inclination to engage more violent rhetoric or acts."
The current congressional environment, Freeman said, is representative of the state of the nation, to an extent. "The fact of the matter is that there's a lot of violence and political rhetoric right now, or a lot of violent threats circulating around now in politics," she said.
Several professors also said former President Donald Trump has been a significant force in increasing the acceptance of violence. Lichtman claimed Trump has often "incited violence, welcomed violence" against political enemies.
Trump's 2024 presidential campaign did not provide comment to the Washington Examiner.
Lichtman specifically recalled a recent comment from Trump in which he referred to his opponents as "vermin" that needed to be rooted out.
Dallek expressed similar concern over Trump's rhetoric and significant influence, noting he is the far and away front-runner for the Republican nomination in 2024. "We saw on Jan. 6, most dramatically, but we've seen other instances as well of violence over the past few years that the political rhetoric of dehumanization has real world impact and that some people take it literally," he said.
Others, however, believe the uptick in the acceptance of violence is a byproduct of a populist resurgence on both sides of the political spectrum. Trump's presidency is similarly considered by some to be a byproduct of the populist movement.
"Populist frustration has fueled more aggressive politics and political styles," Huder said. He added that tension and rhetorical extremes can often be created by such shifts in political coalitions.
Dallek gave the example of Gov. Greg Gianforte (R-MT), who "body-slammed a reporter. And then he won."
He noted that Gianforte even "pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor" for the assault and was still elected. "What does that say about the permissibility, about the permissiveness, at least in some segments of society, toward violence?" he asked.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
According to Burchett, the victim of McCarthy's alleged elbowing, "It's just individuals, I would think."
"It's personal responsibility," he added, dismissing the idea of a trend.