After posting an atrociously violent video depicting Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez being killed and President Joe Biden being attacked, the House voted on Nov. 17, 2021, to censure Rep. Paul Gosar by a margin of 223-207, with one member voting present.
That’s a welcome action, but it’s not nearly enough. Beyond members of Congress, legislature-watchers, and avid politicos, the gravitas and symbolism of the censure is not particularly appreciated by wide swaths of the American public — and that’s a problem. Even in the media, the Gosar censure vote on the evening of Nov. 17 wasn’t quite headline news. Gosar’s tweet is not the first propagation of either violence or threats of violence by House members, and it’s not even the worst instance. In early 2021, reports emerged that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene had “repeatedly indicated support for executing prominent Democratic politicians in 2018 and 2019” and had also “liked comments about executing FBI agents.”
Representative Gosar continues to defend his actions, but the fact is those actions are a danger to this country. In the wake of his tweets, Dr. Joanne Freeman of Yale University tweeted that “threats of violence lead to actual violence … They maim democracy. And they run the risk of killing it.” When Rep. Gosar tweets a video of a fellow representative being murdered, that sends the bone-chilling message to his constituents and to followers at large that the content is acceptable. Indeed, Dr. Freeman said that — as was the case for Preston Brooks’ infamous caning of Charles Sumner in the Senate chamber — “sometimes these violent acts are done partly for the base … and sometimes that is indeed rewarded.” Robert Reich, in a column in the Guardian, firmly argued that “[unless] those at the highest levels of government who foment or encourage violence … are held accountable, no one in political life will be safe.” In another Guardian piece, Joan E. Greve cited the U.S. Capitol Police when she reported that the “agency had seen a 107% increase in threats against members compared with 2020.” The stakes have never been higher.
It is absolutely paramount, then, that our government adopt a framework that clearly delineates punishments for serious offenses, and such a framework should also establish what those offenses would be. Part of the problem is that several high-profile House Republicans do not consider Gosar’s actions to be all that problematic. McCarthy claimed that “[Gosar] apologized,” and so a censure would be unnecessary. With all due respect to the congressman, death threats against a member of Congress cannot be swept under the rug because the perpetrator said sorry — which, it should be noted, Gosar did not actually say. He instead said he doesn’t “espouse violence” and that the cartoon was “symbolic.”
The fact is, the congressional disciplinary framework is woefully lacking — censure remains the “second harshest punishment” preceding only expulsion. The gap between the two punishments risks equating very serious offenses with comparatively less serious ones. In July 1866, Representative Lovell Rouseau was censured for “assaulting Representative Josiah Grinnell of Iowa with a cane.” A mere six months later, in January 1877, the House censured another member, John W. Hunter, this time for “unparliamentary language for insulting a Member during debate.” Those two are not the same, and any disciplinary code that considers them as such is clearly in dire need of improvement. Congress has full license to create punishments and a code of conduct — that’s a power vested in the legislature by the Constitution itself, which says that “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.” To remedy the gaps in this congressional code of conduct would merely require an internal vote; it would not be difficult.
There is a valid argument to be made that acts worthy of expulsion should have to cross the highest bar possible, so as to remove any notion of partisanship when it is invoked. Expulsion from a chamber of Congress should not sway with the political winds, and that’s a valid and important point: in the House, three of the five members ever expelled were expelled for supporting the Confederacy. In the Senate, that number stands at 14 out of 15. As horrific, disgusting, and dangerous as Gosar’s actions were, they were not treasonous. However, that just underscores the need to have a more comprehensive code of punishment — any individual with common sense will note the large gap in gravity between taking up arms against the United States and using “unparliamentary language.” Our congressional code should reflect that.
Stripping committee assignments is also an important practical step, a punishment enforced on both Gosar and Greene. It removes the ability from members of Congress to have a voice in policy-making and ultimately prevents them from doing their job. The problem with this is that it too doesn’t have any real impact in this day and age — as Americans start voting more for party than person, the “R” or “D” on the ballot gains more significance than how many dollars the representative brought to the district to build another road. Without his committee assignments, Rep. Gosar may not be able to help build many more roads, but he absolutely has maintained his sway and voice in the public. Congress needs to move beyond mere censure and removal of committee assignments. While it will be impossible to cut off representatives’ hold on public opinion, it is possible to cripple their legislative capabilities more and more. Removing their ability to vote in chamber votes — beyond just committee — could prove effective.
Frankly, it’s possible that the code may need to add stricter punishments beyond expulsion instead of trying to fill the gap between expulsion and censure. Perhaps Rep. Gosar should have been expelled while the treasonous representatives in the 1860s should have been jailed. The ultimate point is that there are many, many ways to reform congressional disciplinary protocols. It is absolutely essential — for the sake of the security and health of our democracy — that representatives who threaten their colleagues, espouse violence, or commit any other number of violations or crimes face tangible punishment. It shouldn’t be anathema to demand that a representative who makes death threats against a member of Congress face criminal proceedings. Such action may not be applicable for Rep. Gosar, but in today’s charged political climate, it is a heartachingly realistic possibility that one representative lodges a serious threat against another. Congress needs a system to deal with that.
To be clear, the censure should still be employed for problematic and insulting statements — and that, as all of our laws should, be applied to both sides of the aisle. Rep. Maxine Waters’s statement, for instance, to “get confrontational” as protests roared in the wake of George Floyd’s murder is not fitting of a sitting member of the House. Equating what she said, however, with Gosar’s video of him killing Ocasio-Cortez is downright inappropriate. If a censure is considered appropriate for Rep. Waters — and it may be, considering censure precedent — then Rep. Gosar should face far, far more serious consequences. The cloud of threats of violence is gathering over Capitol Hill, and we need a strong umbrella.
Image by Chelms Varthoumlien is licensed under the Unsplash License.
