Your <5% figure equates at its top end to 13.35M American adults who support using violence to advance their political aims. As an Australian, I find that number truly shocking and depressing, especially when I consider how many of those violently inclined Americans have ready access to lethal weapons and show the world every day how willing they are to use them to lethal effect.
I appreciate the article and i think it is really good to understand how "otherizing" and characterizing the other by their worst examples is a recipe for polarization.
However, i think you miss the other side of this... another key recipe for polarization is the denial of the existence or underestimating the frequency of dysfunctional extremists within one's own identity group.
A few points here.
First, you say that right wingers are claiming that Tyler Robinson was a leftist without evidence. That is overstating things. There is evidence, just not conclusive. The current "Tyler = Groyper = super-far-right" rhetoric is speculation. Counter that with early quotes from his father and from a school mate that he was leftist. yes, that school mate just withdrew the claim, saying they didn't really know for sure, but even without this support, the simpler explanation is left wing, not super far right. Also more support seems to be coming through, including Guardian reported quotes from the Utah governor that Robinson was in a romantic relationship with his transitioning trans woman room mate. More information will be coming, so i wouldn't commit strongly until charges are actually filed and more evidence is public, but it is an overstatement to say that they were claiming he was a leftist without evidence.
More importantly, there are now huge numbers of leftists, like Rebecca Solnit who are rapidly doing the same thing... dramatically overstating evidence that he is actually super far right and ignoring evidence that he is a leftist. this is then generating or serving as fodder for demonizing memes against the right.
The problem is not just that the right exaggerates left support for violence. Leftists encourage this by trying to pretend that there is no support for violence from the left, when clearly there is some. This reduces conservatives trust in anything progressives say when they deny the existence of progressive extremists.
I think it is useful to quantify the changing rates of violence from left and right and levels of organization for violence on the left and right. An accurate assessment would likely be that there is MORE support for violence from the right, but to pretend like left violence is not an issue at all is only going to reduce trust.
I always question charts that show polar party extremes. Who makes the call and what is their agenda? Is desiring a single payer healthcare system hard left? Is wanting some form of gun control hard left? Is wanting equal rights (based on the content of character, for example) hard left? Is wanting a deficit and debt control hard right?
I question your facts on Extreme views posted on social media. It's my understanding that 70+ percent of social media content is conservative. It's hard to believe that there are more extreme posts by liberals than conservatives when the huge majority of posts are consevative.
Maybe they were not looking at quantity? But I'm not sure what you would look at otherwise.
As a side note, Trumps ratings were in the high 30's and low 40's during his whole first term. It doesn't seem to make much difference.
The amount of time spent on social media may increase the amount of radicalization, if Mike Lee, Elon Musk, and JD Vance are representative.
Social media could be required to send informational posts to users, like the Nutrition Facts Label, or perhaps warning posts, such as the messages on tobacco products, would be more relevant.
Activate America (www.activateamerica.vote) has recently added more postcards to the PA GOTV campaigns for Nov. Please note: Activate America has recently transitioned their postcard platform to SincereApp. For instructions on how to set up an account, follow the instructions on the left-hand panel of this web-page: https://www.activateamerica.vote/postcards
We would be well served if the proverb "measure twice, cut once" was updated to "research twice, post once". Thanks again for drawing from a rich set of information in framing views of political violence. Now if we could just get a larger group doing more thinking and less posting ....
What do real people think about reporting on the health of the president? With a history that includes FDR, Wilson, and Reagan plus the relative handling of Biden and Trump is top of mind, do Americans believe various types of media are reporting appropriately?
I really like this piece and obviously I don’t disagree with the findings which are objectively true. I don’t think that most Americans support violence, but I also feel like we’re not addressing an issue. These random acts of politically motivated violence have historically been more likely to be committed by racially motivated, violent extremists of the white supremacist variety. The FBI, DHS, and DOJ have known for decades that white supremacists are our biggest domestic terrorist threat. So are we gonna keep ignoring the root cause of the majority of these politically motivated violent acts so that we can claim bipartisanship? It’s not working.
There should be no equivocation or qualification about political violence. It is wrong, regardless of politics, religion, ethnicity or any characteristic. All political disagreements should be resolved peacefully and democratically - no exceptions. Political leaders need to take account of your findings here and lead with this message.
I came of political age ca. 1968. In my lifetime, I haven't seen all that many disagreements "resolved . . . democratically," at least at the national level. At first, women and people of color were mostly absent from the process. From the Reagan administration onward, money spoke louder and louder, culminating in the Citizens United decision (2010). As an ideal, it's great, but at this point we're nowhere close to it.
I take your point - and peaceful protest, the courts and all other options in a democratic society have to be pursued. There is however, no room for political violence, for wherever violence is the chosen route democracy is the victim.
Your <5% figure equates at its top end to 13.35M American adults who support using violence to advance their political aims. As an Australian, I find that number truly shocking and depressing, especially when I consider how many of those violently inclined Americans have ready access to lethal weapons and show the world every day how willing they are to use them to lethal effect.
I appreciate the article and i think it is really good to understand how "otherizing" and characterizing the other by their worst examples is a recipe for polarization.
However, i think you miss the other side of this... another key recipe for polarization is the denial of the existence or underestimating the frequency of dysfunctional extremists within one's own identity group.
A few points here.
First, you say that right wingers are claiming that Tyler Robinson was a leftist without evidence. That is overstating things. There is evidence, just not conclusive. The current "Tyler = Groyper = super-far-right" rhetoric is speculation. Counter that with early quotes from his father and from a school mate that he was leftist. yes, that school mate just withdrew the claim, saying they didn't really know for sure, but even without this support, the simpler explanation is left wing, not super far right. Also more support seems to be coming through, including Guardian reported quotes from the Utah governor that Robinson was in a romantic relationship with his transitioning trans woman room mate. More information will be coming, so i wouldn't commit strongly until charges are actually filed and more evidence is public, but it is an overstatement to say that they were claiming he was a leftist without evidence.
More importantly, there are now huge numbers of leftists, like Rebecca Solnit who are rapidly doing the same thing... dramatically overstating evidence that he is actually super far right and ignoring evidence that he is a leftist. this is then generating or serving as fodder for demonizing memes against the right.
The problem is not just that the right exaggerates left support for violence. Leftists encourage this by trying to pretend that there is no support for violence from the left, when clearly there is some. This reduces conservatives trust in anything progressives say when they deny the existence of progressive extremists.
I think it is useful to quantify the changing rates of violence from left and right and levels of organization for violence on the left and right. An accurate assessment would likely be that there is MORE support for violence from the right, but to pretend like left violence is not an issue at all is only going to reduce trust.
I always question charts that show polar party extremes. Who makes the call and what is their agenda? Is desiring a single payer healthcare system hard left? Is wanting some form of gun control hard left? Is wanting equal rights (based on the content of character, for example) hard left? Is wanting a deficit and debt control hard right?
I question your facts on Extreme views posted on social media. It's my understanding that 70+ percent of social media content is conservative. It's hard to believe that there are more extreme posts by liberals than conservatives when the huge majority of posts are consevative.
Maybe they were not looking at quantity? But I'm not sure what you would look at otherwise.
As a side note, Trumps ratings were in the high 30's and low 40's during his whole first term. It doesn't seem to make much difference.
The amount of time spent on social media may increase the amount of radicalization, if Mike Lee, Elon Musk, and JD Vance are representative.
Social media could be required to send informational posts to users, like the Nutrition Facts Label, or perhaps warning posts, such as the messages on tobacco products, would be more relevant.
Here are some ideas that will help to retain the PA Supreme Court Justices:
Vote Forward has letter writing campaigns for PA and there are still hundreds of thousands of names and addresses still available: https://votefwd.org/campaigns. If you are new to Vote Forward, start here: https://votefwd.org/instructions
Swing left Philadelphis is hosting two Vote Forward letting righting zooms on Sept. 15th and 29th. Register here: www.mobilize.us/swingleft/event/812534/
Activate America (www.activateamerica.vote) has recently added more postcards to the PA GOTV campaigns for Nov. Please note: Activate America has recently transitioned their postcard platform to SincereApp. For instructions on how to set up an account, follow the instructions on the left-hand panel of this web-page: https://www.activateamerica.vote/postcards
Promote the Vote is hosting phonebanks for the PA Election on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, 4-6 p.m ET. Register here: https://www.mobilize.us/promotethevotepa/event/805547
Turn PA Blue is also hosting phonebanks Tuesdays and Sundays, 6-8 p.m ET. Register here: https://www.mobilize.us/turnpablue/event/823746
We would be well served if the proverb "measure twice, cut once" was updated to "research twice, post once". Thanks again for drawing from a rich set of information in framing views of political violence. Now if we could just get a larger group doing more thinking and less posting ....
Monetization of anger. But anger can't buy groceries.
Maybe some folks could learn a few things from Dr. Seuss' 1984 The Butter Battle Book!
One thing that might be revealing / interesting:
What do real people think about reporting on the health of the president? With a history that includes FDR, Wilson, and Reagan plus the relative handling of Biden and Trump is top of mind, do Americans believe various types of media are reporting appropriately?
I really like this piece and obviously I don’t disagree with the findings which are objectively true. I don’t think that most Americans support violence, but I also feel like we’re not addressing an issue. These random acts of politically motivated violence have historically been more likely to be committed by racially motivated, violent extremists of the white supremacist variety. The FBI, DHS, and DOJ have known for decades that white supremacists are our biggest domestic terrorist threat. So are we gonna keep ignoring the root cause of the majority of these politically motivated violent acts so that we can claim bipartisanship? It’s not working.
There should be no equivocation or qualification about political violence. It is wrong, regardless of politics, religion, ethnicity or any characteristic. All political disagreements should be resolved peacefully and democratically - no exceptions. Political leaders need to take account of your findings here and lead with this message.
I came of political age ca. 1968. In my lifetime, I haven't seen all that many disagreements "resolved . . . democratically," at least at the national level. At first, women and people of color were mostly absent from the process. From the Reagan administration onward, money spoke louder and louder, culminating in the Citizens United decision (2010). As an ideal, it's great, but at this point we're nowhere close to it.
Billionaires WON'T fix the problem. Billionaires ARE the problem.
I wish we could redirect the anger and rage to the billionaires who foster and benefit from the vile. WeDidntWantThis.com
I take your point - and peaceful protest, the courts and all other options in a democratic society have to be pursued. There is however, no room for political violence, for wherever violence is the chosen route democracy is the victim.
Politicians learned a long time ago that re-election is a turnout game. Voters turn out when they are riled up. Politicians want to keep their jobs.
Or when they are inspired - perhaps a different form of being riled up. As in: Obama first term, Mamdani currently.