You are asking exactly the right question. When something happens that's unusual where you agree with the cause, but question the actions, ask yourself: what if

You are asking exactly the right question. When something happens that's unusual where you agree with the cause, but question the actions, ask yourself: what if I didn't agree with the cause? (This is Kant's Categorical Imperative - Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.) Otherwise we're just out in the streets beating each other with clubs. In this case, however, it's political theater during an election year. The right folks cheer, the right folks get angry, and the two-party system keeps humming along. The House has the ability to direct the Sergeant at Arms to bring order to the chamber. That's their job. Been done before. So this goes on for a bit, the ruling party brings down the hammer, and everybody gets to be angry. I disagree with this cause, but even if I agreed I don't see much utility coming out of this aside from energizing the base in an election year where one party desperately needs an energized base. (The other party has gone off the playbook and is not appealing to its base at all. It'll be interesting what happens to their base.)