Countering political violence

Tomorrow is the 2024 Presidential Election. Finally! Oh dear Goddess.

What lies ahead!? Some republicans leaders are openly talking of civil war, lynching election officials, and extinguishing political enemies. Trump has recently been talking about the dangers of the “enemy within” - which is all rather terrifying. As many have noted before, this messaging is prep work for inciting violence and intimidating people from speaking out. While there are countless articles and podcasts about the potential for violence surrounding this election, I’ve seen little advice as to what to do about it. And as loyal readers will know, I love an action plan so I’ve outlined some suggestions below. But first, what is political violence and what might we expect in the coming days and months?

Political violence is any act that seeks to influence the outcome of elections through coercion. The violence can be against humans, property, or infrastructure and can be physical, threatening, or intimidating. Political violence can occur at any stage of the election process.

There were many instances of political violence surrounding the 2020 election ranging from months of harassing election officials to the deadly insurrection on January 6, 2021. Starting with assaults on election officials, since 2020 about 40% percent of elected officials have received threats or been attacked. Many election officials have therefore retired early. This has led to a massive loss of institutional knowledge which in itself has weakened our ability to carry out safe and fair elections.

A more coordinated form of election violence is being carried out by the Republican Party - the undermining of faith in the election process. For example, since September, the party has paid for more than 100 adds on Facebook and Instagram claiming that non-citizens are voting. While there have been a few cases of non-citizens voting, a extensive analysis of voting records by the conservative Heritage Foundation documents how trivial an issue this is. Out of the hundreds of millions of votes cast between 1999 and 2023, there were only 77 instances of non-citizens voting. The only purpose for spreading this misinformation that non-citizens is to sow distrust in the US’ overwhelming fair and secure elections. Even Trump’s administration called the 2020 election “the most secure in American history.” Yet Trump has already said that if he loses this 2024 election it can only be because of election fraud. He is clearly and openly laying the ground work for overthrowing an unfavorable result.

In addition to trying to convince folk that the election will be rigged if Trump losses, the Republican party has been busy laying the ground work to subvert the election in other ways. Dozens of election deniers are in local offices where they hold the ceremonial power to certify election results. [Note that voting experts assert that it is illegal to refuse to certify a vote.] Republicans have passed laws in a number of states making it harder for people to vote. Furthermore, they have already started challenging the election in court to lay the groundwork for a suite of lawsuits ready to flood the justice system in an attempt to swing the election in Trump’s favor. These acts of political violence are already threatening our democracy, but what of physical violence?

If Trump wins, he has of course declared that he will be dictator for a day, that he will arrest dissenters, dismantle the Departments of Education and the Environment, and round up and deport illegal immigrants. These statements alone are acts of political violence as well as promises of more political violence to come. Will the left react with violence of their own? In an in-depth examination of political violence databases, researchers found that, in the US, radicalized individuals with a left-wing ideology had a 68% lower chance of engaging in violence than right-wing radicalized ideologists. As for actual attacks, the Global Terrorism Database shows that between 2000 and 2018, in the US, attacks by the far right have always exceeded those by the far left, but since 2016 far right attacks have sky rocketed. In 2019, there were 30 attacks by far right groups, and just 1 by far left groups. Research from Germany and Israel has found that domestic terrorism rises when authorities from the same side of the political spectrum tolerated it. This is of course what we have now in the US with the leader of the Republican Party inciting violence regularly.

However, Democrats must recall that their party is not free from violence. Indeed more Democrats than Republicans support punching members of the other party (21% to 16%) and even that killing some members of the other party may be acceptable (13% of Democrats , 9% of Republicans). While Democratic sentiments still result in far fewer extremist attacks, it is imperative that Democrats as well as Republicans own and tone down their own hate rhetoric.

The threat of grand scale violence, like civil war or storming election centers, seems to be much more likely if Harris wins the election. After all, Trump has said “If I don’t get elected … it’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.” However, post election violence is unlikely to be a repeat of the of the January 6th coup attempt. First, election officials and law enforcement been working to improve protections surrounding the vote. Congress passed the Electoral Count Act of 2022 closing loopholes in Congress’ ratification of the Electoral College’s vote - such as Trump asking Vice President Pence to skip over the reading (and thus recording) of some states that Biden had won in. Second, Biden will be President at the time of certification, not Trump. And, third, the groups at the forefront of the January 6th insurrection are far weaker than they were 4 years ago as many of their leaders were convicted of insurrection and violent offenses. Experts suggest that physical violence is much more likely to erupt at local election sites.

After nearly two months of searching for solutions, I can only offer a list of ideas I’ve come across. Multi-pronged, arduous, slow work - but essential and rippling outwards.

1. Educate ourselves - endeavor to understand why our fellow citizens are resorting to election violence.

This is a long term strategy, but it can inform our actions in the coming days. As shocking as this may be to some of us, many people in our country support Trump. It would be best if we could understand these folks’ worries. This arduous journey will be personal for all of us, but perhaps you will find solace, as I did, in an excellent article by Barbara Walter. Here she explains that differences alone do not give rise to violence, rather “mouthpieces” do. Violence arises from leaders using discriminatory tactics that provoke fear, from leaders convincing citizens that their way of life is under threat from an “other”, and that “the in group” must act together to counter these threats. Such leaders are called “ethnic entrepreneurs” by researchers and they include politicians, media figures, religious leaders and business elites all of whom froth up people’s fears in order to support and build their power. This is the old playground bully plan - convince your group that they are superior and deserve to dominate.

It is comforting to know that the followers of ethnic entrepreneurs are often aware of their leaders agenda and disinformation. However the fear, from relentless messaging, lead the citizenry to turn to these leaders who they perceive as offering protection. Trump’s entire play book is based on ethnic factionalism. He portrays blacks as poor and violent, Mexicans as criminals, he banned travel from many Muslim countries, and has referred to African nations as “shithole” countries. He is constantly putting down others. Understanding that the Trump platform is fear mongering can greatly facilitate empathy with those who support him. I think the Democratic party missed a trick here - they really needed to play up their efforts to date and their plans to further bolster disenfranchised communities.

2. Embody the mantra “We are more alike than different” - engage with “others”

Anytime we can civilly discuss issues with someone whose opinions differ from our own, we are making an important difference. Civil discussions help us to remember that we have more in common than that which separates us. We turn from “the other is evil” to “the other is different” and if we seek we can find commonalities at the root of almost all issues. We all want safety and comfort, community and a thriving biosphere. Nearly everyone disagrees with the use of political violence. When we find commonalities, we reduce tensions, hatred, and justifications for violence.

When discussing how to achieve goals with folks across the political divide, remember that we are unlikely to convince one another of our take during one conversation. Instead, try shifting your focus to understanding how “others” have reached their conclusions, rather than trying to show how they are wrong. My dear brother in-law and I went round and round for some time about universal health care, of which I am a staunch supporter. Then one day, he patiently stated that of course he wanted health care for all, but he didn’t trust the government to organize it well. Ah. That - I could appreciate. By listening to others we enhance our community, our own well being, and sew seeds of harmony. We may even open cracks in our friends, or out own, world view :^)

Beyond the very important conversations we can have with our differently aligned family and friends, research has shown that working on an equal footing with others towards a common goal is amongst the most powerful ways to reduce prejudices and tensions. Nothing like a good old fashioned barn raising for building community. Could we find ways, each of us, to do this in our communities?

3. Call out misinformation and conspiracies, encourage analytical thinking

Rachel Kleinfield from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace points out that challenging justifications for violence is an effective way of reducing political violence. This means correcting misinformation, respectfully of course. It is really powerful to have data on hand for these conversations, such as countering claims that migrants are violent criminals with facts like - undocumented immigrants are arrested at half the rate of the general population for violent and drug crimes and just one quarter of the rate for property crimes. But if you’re like me and don’t remember facts like that very well, you can tell your friend you’ll get back to them with some data. Ongoing conversations are great ways to connect, understand, and build community, as well as demonstrate critical thinking (see below).

Beware, however, that trying to disillusion someone about a conspiracy theory is really difficult. In a fascinating discussion of the danger of misinformation to democracy, experts note that conspiracy theories have changed recently. Indeed the shift is so dramatic that pundits have coined a new term - conspiracism to denote that modern day conspiracy theories differ from old fashioned ones by having discarded the “theory”. While old conspiracy theories were backed up data, dodgy or misapplied as that data might be, conspiracisms don’t have any data. Conspiracisms are simply statements. Evidence that could be refuted is not part of a conspiracism. For example: “the 2020 election was rigged” is a conspiracism. Repetition is its sole authority - albeit to great effect. It is very difficult to pull someone out of a conspiracism rabbit hole. Facts don’t help as there is nothing to refute. Nonetheless, it is still productive to call out conspiracisms. For although we may not be changing the ‘other’s’ mindset, we are bolstering society’s commitment to facts, and perhaps even opening a crack.

The best strategy for combatting conspiracies is arming people with the ability to recognize unsubstaintiated statements. This is a long term educational goal, one the educational flagship Finland has embraced. But we can take one practical step - and that is to showcase critical thinking. We can aim to practice, and gently educate, others about making decisions based on the implications and supporting evidence of a statement, rather than on a gut reaction. This could take the form of explaining how your intuitive response is different from your analytical conclusion and how you are honing your misinformation detector.

4. Use your voice and vote to demand that our leaders tone down the hate rhetoric, speak truthfully, and address hate crimes.

The second key way to reduce justifications for political violence, according to expert Rachel Kleinfield, is for political leaders to make statements against the use of violence. For example, following the 9/11 attacks, President Bush called on the American people to remember their Muslim neighbors are an integral part of our peace-loving community, were victims of 9/11, and first responders to the Tower disaster.

The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice outlined 3 essential steps for reducing hate crimes. These steps are relevant to political violence as well:

1. a clear message from leadership that hate crimes will not be tolerated and perpetrators prosecuted,

2. reach out to vulnerable communities to identify their issues and concerns, and

3. investigate and prosecute perpetrators.

In opposition to these tactics, as an article in the Atlantic summarizes, “Trump himself has a long record - singular among American presidents of the modern era—of inciting and threatening violence against his fellow citizens, journalists, and anyone he deems his opposition” Terrifying quotes from Trump include “I don’t fucking care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me.” and a disturbing allusion to Christ like status “I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.”

Demand that our leaders behave responsibly. Call and write to leaders who misbehave. Don’t vote for potential leaders who promote the use of violence.

5. Protest.

I’ve always understood that protests were largely only effective in that they encouraged the protestors themselves. It turns out that is wrong. While it is difficult to credit any given protest with changes, historians and sociologists argue that protests do shift public opinion and national policy. Examples include the Berlin Wall Protests leading to the dismantling of the wall, The March on Washington leading to the Civil Rights Act, South Africa’s National Day of Protest which contributed to the end of apartheid, Gandhi’s Salt March which paved the way for the end of British rule in India, and the Orange Revolution in Ukrainian which directly led to a revote and reversal of the presidential election results . More recently, the marches following the murder of George Floyd have been credited with instigating a worldwide debate on policing and racial injustice as well as some policing reforms.

Research on the efficacy of protests is complex. Some studies find that nonviolent, non-disruptive marches are the most effective while other studies find that disruptive nonviolent demonstrations, like road blocks and sit-ins, are the most effective. A recent study uncovered a pattern in these claims - it depends on how you are measuring effectiveness: changing public opinion or changing policy. Peaceful, non-disruptive protests were most effective at changing public opinion. On the other hand, peaceful disruptive protests were the most effective at increasing support for policy change, especially for resistant audiences.

What is crystal clear is that protests do make a difference. A shining example of the power of protests occurred this summer in the UK. Following a tragic fatal stabbing, a slurry of disinformation, and days of racist violence, far right groups called for protests at over 100 immigration centers and immigration lawyers’ offices. But by the time the protests were due to start, thousands upon thousands of counter protesters had gathered to guard the centers around the country. There was virtually no sign of the far right protesters. What’s more, UK citizens made a point of checking in with their immigrant neighbors and frequenting their business. Well done Brits.

If you do attend a protest, it is important to know your rights before you go. For instance, write on your body the phone number of legal support before you go.

6. De-escalating rising tension and violence in the moment

If you do find yourself in the midst of escalating violence, the AFSC (the Quaker’s American Friends Service Committee) recommends the “4Ds” - distract, delegate, direct, and delay. Try to distract someone who is getting riled up - ask for directions, spill your drink “accidentally”, pretend you know one of them. Next, delegate help - try to bring in others to support your efforts at de-escalation - possibly someone with social authority like a store manager or a bus driver. The Friends don’t recommend calling the police over unless requested. When intervening, remain direct - be confident, assertive, and calm. Walk up to the aggressor and ask them directly to stop their behavior. And finally, if you can’t act in the moment, delay your response and check in with the target of the violence after the event. See if you can support them in any way.

May this article prove needless. Peace and light my friends. Peace and light.