Politicians acting badly has an ancient pedigree.

On March 15, 44 B.C., Julius Caesar, Dictator for Life of the Roman Republic, was unexpectedly term-limited by a knife-wielding group of his colleagues.

If Aaron Burr had not blown away his famous political nemesis Alexander Hamilton on the dueling grounds at Weehawken, New Jersey, on July 11, 1804, odds are my granddaughters would not be singing, over and over, and word for clever word, the lyrics of a certain current Broadway smash hit.

On May 22, 1856, Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina using a “light cane,” described at the United States Senate website (www.senate.gov) as being “of the type used to discipline unruly dogs,” entered the Senate Chamber and proceeded to beat unconscious anti-slavery advocate Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts. Brooks would later survive a censure motion, resign from Congress, and be reelected, only to die shortly thereafter. Sumner would recover and serve in the Senate for another 18 years.

The website, commenting on the fallout from this incident, notes: “The nation, suffering from the breakdown of reasoned discourse that this event symbolized, tumbled toward the catastrophe of civil war.”

On the evening of May 24, 2016, in the town of Bozeman, Montana, a footnote was added to the list of politicians behaving badly.

GOP congressional candidate Greg Gianforte took offense at a persistent reporter’s question.  With digital recorder recording, Gianforte cursed the reporter, grabbed him by the neck with both hands, and “body slammed” him to the floor, breaking the reporter’s glasses. Gianforte would be cited for assault by the local sheriff.

The Gianforte campaign quickly released a self-serving version of the event that essentially blamed the reporter: “It’s unfortunate that this aggressive behavior from a liberal journalist created this scene at our campaign volunteer BBQ.”

A news team, ironically from the local Fox News affiliate, witnessed the incident and later debunked the Gianforte description of what had transpired. Fox News is generally not noted for having a liberal bias.

Whether the characterization of the reporter as being a “liberal” was seen as justifying the attack is unclear. However, the campaign was quick to report the next day that an additional $100,000 in campaign contributions had been received overnight, the implication being that there was support for Gianforte’s takedown of the reporter.

Speaking from the personal experience of 25 years in public service, I can attest that reporters can sometimes be bothersome, persistent, obnoxious, or even combative. According to eyewitnesses, none of these adjectives appear to be applicable to the reporter in this instance.

There is a reason why the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights establishes the right to a free press that is independent, uncensored, and upon occasion, even aggressive in the pursuit of a story.

The framers of the Constitution were aware of the potential for press excesses, but they felt that danger paled in comparison to the excesses that could be perpetrated by those in power.

What should cause concern is that candidate Gianforte felt enabled to do what he did because the public might find his conduct acceptable, or at the least, not fatal to his candidacy.

The fault lies with us, the public.

We are complicit in the coarsening of our public dialogue. If we are unwilling to set limits on what is acceptable conduct, any conduct becomes acceptable

The framers gave us a tool to enforce limits on the conduct of those who would hold public office.

That tool is called the vote, and it should be used to encourage those willing to engage in rational dialogue and debate. It should also be used consign those who are not willing to engage in rational dialogue and debate to the swamp from whence they came.

This is a proposition upon which both liberals and conservatives should be able to agree.

If not, we have bigger problems than a reporter having his glasses broken.