ADVERTISEMENT

Opinion An expert in political violence urgently warns: The worst is coming

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,328
58,729
113
By Greg Sargent
Columnist |
July 11, 2022 at 11:12 a.m. EDT

The Jan. 6 House select committee hearings this week are among the most important of all, because they will foreground a topic that many Americans ordinarily don’t associate with their democracy, even after the events of the insurrection: political violence.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
The Tuesday proceeding will focus on militias and paramilitary groups that helped bring us to the precipice on Jan. 6, 2021. The Thursday hearing will examine President Donald Trump’s derelict conduct as the violence raged — and how this was intimately entangled with the desire of Trump and many of his MAGA followers to overturn our political order.
But hovering over these hearings will be a broader, unanswered question: whether the United States is developing an endemic problem with political violence and, in coming years, how bad it might get.
For an unflinching look at this larger context, I reached out to Rachel Kleinfeld, a specialist in political conflict who has studied the breakdown of democracy and the rule of law in many countries.


In a new article for Just Security, Kleinfeld charts the developing connections between militias and Republican Party actors at all levels. And in her most recent book, “A Savage Order,” Kleinfeld detailed patterns of democratic deterioration that have pushed other nations down the path to conflagration.
I asked Kleinfeld to explain how the events surrounding Jan. 6 might be a harbinger of such breakdown here at home. An edited and condensed version of our exchange follows.
Greg Sargent: You’ve written that the Republican Party has a “militia problem.” Can you describe it?
Rachel Kleinfeld: For the last few years, we’ve seen an uptick in Republican parties at the local level — though occasionally at the state level — using militias for security at party events, having militias vote on party business, in one case in Michigan having militias introduce legislation. You’re seeing a lot of photo-ops with militia members — things that normalize their interaction with the democratic process.
These militias are being used to threaten other Republicans who aren’t part of this antidemocratic faction.
Sargent: It seems as though some GOP and right-wing politicians are hovering in a gray area. They’re endorsing violent attacks on the opposition without facing serious party discipline, fantasizing about settling political differences via paramilitary combat, vastly minimizing the Jan. 6 insurrectionist violence or erasing it with propaganda, and describing Jan. 6 rioters facing prosecution as “political prisoners.”
Has this gray area been replicated by other countries that went on to spiral into worse political violence?

Kleinfeld: One of the things we know about other countries that descend into greater political violence is that violence is preceded by a dehumanization phase. America is well along in that phase: things like misogyny, racial epithets, calling Democrats “groomers” and comparing them to pedophiles.
The next stage is making violence against those dehumanized opponents seem more normal. You’re starting to see GOP candidates posing with rifles — everything from Rep. Thomas Massie’s family Christmas photo to Eric Greitens’s new ads about hunting RINOs.
Sometimes it’s against Republicans who are not part of the antidemocratic faction. Sometimes it’s against Democrats. But either way, dehumanization normalizes the idea that harming those dehumanized opponents is legitimate.
We know from other countries that have descended into really serious political violence that this is a trajectory, and we’re on it. We’re actually pretty far advanced on it.
Sargent: What would a further spiraling downward from here look like? One can imagine something like this: Threats of violence toward election administrators get worse. Election outcomes, particularly when Republicans lose, are violently contested with more regularity. Now-routine chatter about Democratic rule being illegitimate gets increasingly endorsed by GOP party actors, leading to violent attacks on politicians.
Some experts in democratic breakdown
fear something akin to “the Troubles” in Ireland. What’s your worry? Is it similar to what I just laid out?
Kleinfeld: It’s actually a little worse. The percentages of Americans endorsing violence are approaching Northern Ireland’s Troubles at their height in 1973.
Right now, the antidemocratic faction of Republicans is targeting three groups: the pro-democratic faction of Republicans; election officials in both parties who are maintaining free and fair elections; and a lot of regular people they’re targeting with dehumanization and violence, to build their own base.
If the antidemocratic faction wins, then I think the heightened violence we’re seeing now will continue. But if they start losing, then they’ve built up a lot of hatred — a lot of distrust in the system — and then the violence is going to get out of their control. It’ll look more like an insurgency. A disaffected left, not connected to the Democratic Party, is also justifying violence. It could get ugly.


 
Sargent: Is this akin to a world-historical moment, as some historians have argued? This is obviously an imperfect parallel, but European liberals closely tracked the U.S. struggle over slavery with an eye toward how democracy would fare in the world going forward. Are liberal democrats abroad watching what we do now in some similar sense? Should they be?
Kleinfeld: It’s a good question. Liberal democracy around the world is under fire. Major democracies — like India — are now ranked “partly” free by Freedom House. America has been one of the top 25 countries on the fastest downward trajectories.
So other countries are looking at the U.S. But the U.S. is also part of a global trend.
There are a lot of reasons for this trend. But one is that the democratic world tends to see China as the primary political model that’s a threat, whereas we tend to see Russia as simply causing mayhem.
But Russia is propagating an alternative model. It’s a White, Christian, traditional hierarchy, very masculine, led by a strongman — and they’re spreading that model globally, through satellites like Hungary, and through online white-supremacist movements that they back.
We need to take seriously that for a lot of the world, this traditional hierarchy is actually pretty attractive. It’s an alternative political model that we’re now fighting globally.
Sargent: Does that put us at a crossroads? Trump tried to destroy our constitutional order and had the tacit backing of many in his party. That produced the biggest outbreak of political violence in modern U.S. history. Yet many Republicans still refuse to seriously admit to what happened or even dismiss efforts at an accounting as themselves being illegitimate.
Could a very different response from Republican leaders right now — in which they took this moment seriously — make a further downward spiral less likely?

Kleinfeld: Absolutely. The research on leaders is incredibly clear. If enough Republican leaders started denouncing political violence — saying there’s a line in the sand in a democracy, and violence is it — we would see much less political violence.
America has faced political violence before. The Ku Klux Klan grew in the 1920s. Following Brown v. Board of Education, you had a huge uprising of “massive resistance” in the South. In both cases, elected politicians and candidates normalized a lot of violence.
We’ve had this in the past. We’re having it now. Politicians could play a big role in dialing that back.
Sargent: This is the moment when the hearings really talk about political violence as a threat to our future. What do we need to see the hearings dramatize on this score?
Kleinfeld: They need to show how the GOP is using organized militias. They also need to show that political violence is much more mainstream now. The types of people committing political violence on the right are no longer criminal demographics.
The kinds of violence we’re seeing at political events — Jan. 6 and so on — the majority of people are older men, they’re married, they have children, they have jobs. Often white-collar jobs.
Americans need to realize that paramilitary groups could become a normal part of our political life. We could start seeing it becoming vastly less safe to exercise freedom of speech and assembly. It’s already much less safe than just a handful of years ago.
Sargent: In your ideal version of the hearings, this would be dramatized?
Kleinfeld: The fact that political violence is going to start affecting everyday people’s lives needs to get demonstrated. Americans need to understand that you can’t just keep your head down, stay out of politics and avoid what’s happening.
You’re not going to be able to hide from it.
 
This particular story lost me right here:

"a specialist in political conflict"

FWIW, her case studies are not exactly, shall we say, "comparables".
 
So no concerns from the far left?
Plenty of concerns about intimidating judges by the left. Not so much about threatening election officials or invading government offices.
Both are illegal it seems. But both get downplayed by their respective sides.
 
By Greg Sargent
Columnist |
July 11, 2022 at 11:12 a.m. EDT

The Jan. 6 House select committee hearings this week are among the most important of all, because they will foreground a topic that many Americans ordinarily don’t associate with their democracy, even after the events of the insurrection: political violence.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
The Tuesday proceeding will focus on militias and paramilitary groups that helped bring us to the precipice on Jan. 6, 2021. The Thursday hearing will examine President Donald Trump’s derelict conduct as the violence raged — and how this was intimately entangled with the desire of Trump and many of his MAGA followers to overturn our political order.
But hovering over these hearings will be a broader, unanswered question: whether the United States is developing an endemic problem with political violence and, in coming years, how bad it might get.
For an unflinching look at this larger context, I reached out to Rachel Kleinfeld, a specialist in political conflict who has studied the breakdown of democracy and the rule of law in many countries.


In a new article for Just Security, Kleinfeld charts the developing connections between militias and Republican Party actors at all levels. And in her most recent book, “A Savage Order,” Kleinfeld detailed patterns of democratic deterioration that have pushed other nations down the path to conflagration.
I asked Kleinfeld to explain how the events surrounding Jan. 6 might be a harbinger of such breakdown here at home. An edited and condensed version of our exchange follows.
Greg Sargent: You’ve written that the Republican Party has a “militia problem.” Can you describe it?
Rachel Kleinfeld: For the last few years, we’ve seen an uptick in Republican parties at the local level — though occasionally at the state level — using militias for security at party events, having militias vote on party business, in one case in Michigan having militias introduce legislation. You’re seeing a lot of photo-ops with militia members — things that normalize their interaction with the democratic process.
These militias are being used to threaten other Republicans who aren’t part of this antidemocratic faction.
Sargent: It seems as though some GOP and right-wing politicians are hovering in a gray area. They’re endorsing violent attacks on the opposition without facing serious party discipline, fantasizing about settling political differences via paramilitary combat, vastly minimizing the Jan. 6 insurrectionist violence or erasing it with propaganda, and describing Jan. 6 rioters facing prosecution as “political prisoners.”
Has this gray area been replicated by other countries that went on to spiral into worse political violence?

Kleinfeld: One of the things we know about other countries that descend into greater political violence is that violence is preceded by a dehumanization phase. America is well along in that phase: things like misogyny, racial epithets, calling Democrats “groomers” and comparing them to pedophiles.
The next stage is making violence against those dehumanized opponents seem more normal. You’re starting to see GOP candidates posing with rifles — everything from Rep. Thomas Massie’s family Christmas photo to Eric Greitens’s new ads about hunting RINOs.
Sometimes it’s against Republicans who are not part of the antidemocratic faction. Sometimes it’s against Democrats. But either way, dehumanization normalizes the idea that harming those dehumanized opponents is legitimate.
We know from other countries that have descended into really serious political violence that this is a trajectory, and we’re on it. We’re actually pretty far advanced on it.
Sargent: What would a further spiraling downward from here look like? One can imagine something like this: Threats of violence toward election administrators get worse. Election outcomes, particularly when Republicans lose, are violently contested with more regularity. Now-routine chatter about Democratic rule being illegitimate gets increasingly endorsed by GOP party actors, leading to violent attacks on politicians.
Some experts in democratic breakdown
fear something akin to “the Troubles” in Ireland. What’s your worry? Is it similar to what I just laid out?
Kleinfeld: It’s actually a little worse. The percentages of Americans endorsing violence are approaching Northern Ireland’s Troubles at their height in 1973.
Right now, the antidemocratic faction of Republicans is targeting three groups: the pro-democratic faction of Republicans; election officials in both parties who are maintaining free and fair elections; and a lot of regular people they’re targeting with dehumanization and violence, to build their own base.
If the antidemocratic faction wins, then I think the heightened violence we’re seeing now will continue. But if they start losing, then they’ve built up a lot of hatred — a lot of distrust in the system — and then the violence is going to get out of their control. It’ll look more like an insurgency. A disaffected left, not connected to the Democratic Party, is also justifying violence. It could get ugly.


Worse than shooting at a bunch of congresspeople at a softball game? Big prediction.
 
The distinction that I thought was obvious but apparently needed to be made clearer is the relationship between bad actors and the respective party mechanisms.

Unfortunately, there's all these examples of bad actors on the political right that are embraced within the Republican party itself. It's become mainstream Republican party business. That's different than random fringe right wing nutjobs who have no power, are not engaged with or supported by the Republican party.

Compare that to the violent groups associated with left wings politics often mentioned here: antifa, BLM, harassing judges, accosting Republicans in restaurants, etc. These people are left wing, they're progressives, they would surely prefer the Democrat party over the Republican party, but they don't have anywhere close to the same stature or connections to the Democratic party itself and its mechanisms. The Democratic party doesn't have a Trump, or a Qanon, or these militia groups, or nearly as many prominent conspiracy theories.

Sure, the toadies will find a quote from Obama about fighting, or Lori Lightfoot sounding like a jackass, or Maxine Waters saying something stupid. You know, the thing that proves that both sides are the same and both sides are violent.

Only someone who has been heavily conditioned could possibly believe we're dealing with a both sides are the same, equal but opposite.
 
Worse than shooting at a bunch of congresspeople at a softball game? Big prediction.

I think the distinction is captured in this: "It’ll look more like an insurgency. A disaffected left, not connected to the Democratic Party, is also justifying violence. It could get ugly."

That person who shot up the softball game wasn't embraced as a hero in the Democratic party. He isn't going to go win a Democratic primary. He didn't inspire Democrats to start campaigning with guns or make political ads about going Senator hunting, or animated clips that end in the slaying of their political opponent.

There's probably a lot of left wing people who vote for Democrats who think the softball shooter didn't get enough. They're out there, they hate their political enemies and violence is fine for them. They just don't have leadership positions in the Democratic party, they aren't a big influence.

That's the issue with what' happening with the Republicans, it's not just random right wing crazies that are only useful to make the rest of them seem crazy, they have actually taken root in the party itself. They've gotten real influence.
 
Click bait article.

the beasts feeds itself. 24/7 Opinion pieces suck. Only way to SPE rate yourself is to ratcheted up the retiring more than anybody else.
 
Plenty of concerns about intimidating judges by the left. Not so much about threatening election officials or invading government offices.
Both are illegal it seems. But both get downplayed by their respective sides.
Like Faulty mentioned earlier. Seattle. Chop.
 
I think the distinction is captured in this: "It’ll look more like an insurgency. A disaffected left, not connected to the Democratic Party, is also justifying violence. It could get ugly."

That person who shot up the softball game wasn't embraced as a hero in the Democratic party. He isn't going to go win a Democratic primary. He didn't inspire Democrats to start campaigning with guns or make political ads about going Senator hunting, or animated clips that end in the slaying of their political opponent.

There's probably a lot of left wing people who vote for Democrats who think the softball shooter didn't get enough. They're out there, they hate their political enemies and violence is fine for them. They just don't have leadership positions in the Democratic party, they aren't a big influence.

That's the issue with what' happening with the Republicans, it's not just random right wing crazies that are only useful to make the rest of them seem crazy, they have actually taken root in the party itself. They've gotten real influence.
They don't have a former president talking about them being a hero.
 
The one factor people seem to gloss over though?

21st Century Americans' inherent laziness.

It's one thing to "fight" a Civil War on your keyboard from your house. It's another to put down your Busch Light, grab the AR-15, load up the pickup truck with your "Let's Go Brandon" bumper sticker and head into town looking for a fight.

I have my doubts about the number of fat and happy Americans who would actually take to the streets and do battle. I think you will see more idiot parades and half-assed insurrection attempts, but not enough Americans are actually desperate enough to risk life and limb for political gripes ---- and that's a GOOD thing.
 
The one factor people seem to gloss over though?

21st Century Americans' inherent laziness.

It's one thing to "fight" a Civil War on your keyboard from your house. It's another to put down your Busch Light, grab the AR-15, load up the pickup truck with your "Let's Go Brandon" bumper sticker and head into town looking for a fight.

I have my doubts about the number of fat and happy Americans who would actually take to the streets and do battle. I think you will see more idiot parades and half-assed insurrection attempts, but not enough Americans are actually desperate enough to risk life and limb for political gripes ---- and that's a GOOD thing.
The other side of that is Americans are too lazy to change or protest something if it goes completely off the rails.
 
  • Like
Reactions: torbee
The one factor people seem to gloss over though?

21st Century Americans' inherent laziness.

It's one thing to "fight" a Civil War on your keyboard from your house. It's another to put down your Busch Light, grab the AR-15, load up the pickup truck with your "Let's Go Brandon" bumper sticker and head into town looking for a fight.

I have my doubts about the number of fat and happy Americans who would actually take to the streets and do battle. I think you will see more idiot parades and half-assed insurrection attempts, but not enough Americans are actually desperate enough to risk life and limb for political gripes ---- and that's a GOOD thing.
Bottom line (and yes, I know I'm quoting my own post, I just didn't feel like editing it, lol) is that TRUE political violence happens in societies that are literally coming apart at the seams and/or suffering.

Inflation and high gas prices aside, Americans have it pretty damn good right now --- much better than most of the world in fact. And the biggest gripers and those on social media etc. advocating for radical change -- middle class, mostly rural and suburban white Americans -- are neither starving nor devoid of political power. So it is primarily hyper-tough talk rhetoric and not actual violence they espouse.

Ironically, if things continue down a path of increased wealth disparity and racial animus, history shows it is more likely the far left and ethnic minorities that will resort to actual violence --- as those are the cohorts with nothing left to lose. Fatty McMAGA pants isn't going to risk losing his bass boat and $75,000 F-150 Ranch Edition and Mississippi Valley Fair funcard to ACTUALLY fight a civil war. He has more to lose.
 
The distinction that I thought was obvious but apparently needed to be made clearer is the relationship between bad actors and the respective party mechanisms.

Unfortunately, there's all these examples of bad actors on the political right that are embraced within the Republican party itself. It's become mainstream Republican party business. That's different than random fringe right wing nutjobs who have no power, are not engaged with or supported by the Republican party.

Compare that to the violent groups associated with left wings politics often mentioned here: antifa, BLM, harassing judges, accosting Republicans in restaurants, etc. These people are left wing, they're progressives, they would surely prefer the Democrat party over the Republican party, but they don't have anywhere close to the same stature or connections to the Democratic party itself and its mechanisms. The Democratic party doesn't have a Trump, or a Qanon, or these militia groups, or nearly as many prominent conspiracy theories.

Sure, the toadies will find a quote from Obama about fighting, or Lori Lightfoot sounding like a jackass, or Maxine Waters saying something stupid. You know, the thing that proves that both sides are the same and both sides are violent.

Only someone who has been heavily conditioned could possibly believe we're dealing with a both sides are the same, equal but opposite.
“Far left democrats need to fight the far right republicans in Portland. That is where the civil war will start!!”- Obama
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: torbee and tumorboy
Bottom line (and yes, I know I'm quoting my own post, I just didn't feel like editing it, lol) is that TRUE political violence happens in societies that are literally coming apart at the seams and/or suffering.

Inflation and high gas prices aside, Americans have it pretty damn good right now --- much better than most of the world in fact. And the biggest gripers and those on social media etc. advocating for radical change -- middle class, mostly rural and suburban white Americans -- are neither starving nor devoid of political power. So it is primarily hyper-tough talk rhetoric and not actual violence they espouse.

Ironically, if things continue down a path of increased wealth disparity and racial animus, history shows it is more likely the far left and ethnic minorities that will resort to actual violence --- as those are the cohorts with nothing left to lose. Fatty McMAGA pants isn't going to risk losing his bass boat and $75,000 F-150 Ranch Edition and Mississippi Valley Fair funcard to ACTUALLY fight a civil war. He has more to lose.

Sure, not starving, but devoid of political power? Maybe, it's trending that way. A sham election where someone who was never treated fairly by the establishment had an election stolen out from under him probably feels pretty close.

A stolen election. That's serious. If you genuinely believe that the election was stolen, or whatever variation of rigged, maybe violence actually makes sense? Aren't some things worth fighting for after all?

We're not talking about being too lazy to go fight some lib over the right for an abortion that they can't get anyways, we're talking about a stolen election.

It of course could go the other way. If say Pence had managed to prevent the certification, or election officials in states like Georgia managed to find the votes that Trump told them to find. I'd bet you find people willing to use violence and also feel righteous and justified while they're at it too.

I'm not saying it's Code Red time or as bad as the interviewed "expert" says it is, I don't know, but it certainly doesn't seem to be trending well and it's not hard to imagine some plausible scenarios for political violence to become more normalized. Perhaps similar to the normalization of mass shootings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
A stolen election. That's serious. If you genuinely believe that the election was stolen, or whatever variation of rigged, maybe violence actually makes sense? Aren't some things worth fighting for after all?
I really don't think so, at least if/when your standard of living and day-to-day situation hasn't changed.

Sure, they all love to SAY Joe Biden is "destroying America" but let's think about that.

Are they still getting up and going to work and making money? Do they have enough food on the table? A second car? Multiple televisions? Can they get on the Internet and say whatever the hell they want to whoever they want with no consequence? Are they able to go down to the local Casey's or diner with their MAGA buddies everyday to bitch about the oppressive Biden regime without anyone doing ANYTHING to prevent them from expressing their opinions and political beliefs?

I mean, what would they ACTUALLY be fighting for?

People who like to say they are oppressed but with no actual evidence of oppression are not the types I worry about fomenting revolution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThorneStockton
ADVERTISEMENT