The article revolves around a poll showing that people expect that political violence will increase, but this is likely more of a reflection of how terrible people's perceptions are, than a bellwether of actual impending political violence. People are terrible at assessing how willing the other side is willing to use violence. This study from 2021[1] shows that the overwhelming majority of americans don't support political violence, but massively overestimates how willing the other side is willing to.
>Politics is merely the mechanism by which organized systematic violence happens
Yes, in the sense that "the government has a monopoly on violence", and the application (or at least threat) of "violence" is needed to for a government to work (eg. tax collection, enforcement of property rights, law enforcement), but that's clearly different than "political violence" mentioned in the OP (ie. extrajudicial politically motivated killings), and pretending they're the same because they both "violence" borders on bad faith argumentation.
If I remember my von Clausewitz correctly, at least some professional violence workers believe it’s the other way ‘round. Political ends by violent means and all that… violence being one of many species of persuasive technique available to people and groups with political aims.
True in the most general sense. Generalized political violence is very different from the state using force to based upon the accent of the govern where we have a generalized concept of human rights. To me its a little like saying all art can be be made up with pixels therefore everything is a pixel.
Did you notice that the photographs taken at that event showed that his right ear was bloodied, implying that it was damaged by the bullet passing by. Believable, kinda. But then the Time photo showing his Georgia O'Keeffe neck also showed his completely intact right ear.
The attempt in itself is not just political violence, but also provides grounds for justifying violence against "enemies."
I'd agree except that we appear to have just memory-holed the attempted assassination of Trump during his campaign. And he never talks about it either. Until you posted this, I'd completely forgotten about it.
One of the big ones I remember from the last decade was the Congressional baseball shooting in 2017, where luckily nobody was killed. This isn't a sudden problem to brace for, it's a continuing problem to finally accept and address.
Charlie Kirk was not an elected public official, but he was definitely still political in a way that a lot of regular Americans are political. So even if it's less significant with regard to elected officials being targeted, it was political violence that regular people felt and could conceive of being targeted with, for similar reasons as Charlie. I believe that was what made his assassination resonate with people, much more than an elected official being assassinated does.
If we're counting in the past six months, the list should also include the Capital Jewish Museum shooting, the Boulder Molotov cocktail attack, and the shootings at ICE facilities in Alvarado & Dallas.
I was going for attacks on specific high profile individuals. there were indeed these events and more others if we're counting all politically-motivated terrorism.
These are all instances of political violence. The political class in the united states deemed particular populations disposable, and enacted policies that lead to excess deaths and extreme violence upon those populations. Millions in the united states live under the threat of state violence and politcally accepted exposure to premature death.
The article and comments refer to the resulting counter-violence that perpetrators of the un-remarked systemic violence may become exposed to.
Homeless people must be so happy now that people acknowledge that they can feel at home without a house to live in. There never was a problem with homelessness, I am sure they would say. (this is sarcasm)
But doesn’t “unhoused” sound a little too much like “unhinged?” Has anyone checked whether being referred to as a “person” might be offensive to men and women and boys and girls who have more specific identities? (this is not sarcastic)
Plot these against the rate of similar attempts (or successes) over the past century if you want to convince others of anything other than your own subjective presentist perspective.
I mean, look at the GenZ protests in other parts of the world that have successfully brought down several governments. The US is still "just" in the "lone wolf" phase of political violence.
Exactly! People who think that the vitriol is just cordoned off to social media haven't been paying attention to the very real spillover that has already claimed lives.
I think the issue is that mainstream media like movies showcases political violence as very well organized and full of manifestos when the majority of these attempts are very poorly planned and the people carrying it out clearly have mental disorders so it's very hard to pinpoint what ideology they are promoting.
I also believe that these recent attempts have showcased that the current political establishment has been doing an awful job at reconciliation and instead pouring gasoline by refusing to make a joint statements condemning the violence or making any sort of gesture that isn't blatantly bipartisan.
If you look at the political violence of the 60's and 70's in the US, there's a lot of overlap but at least the government took steps to not only keep it under control but congress actually took steps in dealing with the hot button issues. Nowadays it seems like we're just kicking the can down the road and blaming the other side for it. I mean just look at the current shutdown and tell me if this state of affairs won't result in further anger and people taking action with their own hands rather than rely on political institutions.
A new rise of political violence was clearly coming in when Trump told his supporters, on camera, in front of a crowd, that they ought to shoot Hillary if she won—and then he not only still had an active campaign a week later, but went on to win the election.
That was a huge "oh shit" moment. The rest of this isn't exactly a consequence of specifically what he said, but is something that one could predict from that and other things he said and did in the first election and his first term. The fact that he said what he said and that was no longer regarded as abhorrent by enough people to keep him from even getting close to the Presidency, was the sign.
What drives me crazy is, in a rare moment for me, I will acknowledge that it’s been morphing into a “both sides” issue in the last 24mo or so. I just generally reject “both sides” arguments because it’s so often a cheap hand wavy way to say “I don’t care/won’t look under the hood on this” without having to say it while ignoring the fundamental truth of “two wrongs don’t make a right.”
And yet I still have people insist it’s all “left wing Marxists” or whatever their favorite term is these days. Like we can’t even agree political violence is ratcheting up broadly and it’s a problem we ALL have to deal with.
Partisanship is a hell of a drug.
Edit: several recent attempts/successful perpetrators, including Kirk’s killer, were not clearly right or left. There have been some leftwing incidents but they are certainly fewer than others. I am not saying left wing violence is as bad as right wing violence. But it’s not all right wing anymore. That’s all I’m saying.
Our current government seems to want to provoke a reaction. Constantly talking about sending troops into cities, calling democrats terrorists, and all the other vitriol, certainly isn't intended to create a sense of peace and comfort.
If you constantly try to make people angry, eventually you succeed.
Vurtually anyone saying "left wing Marxists" in the US, in reference to an organized movement, is full of shit and/or fully captured by the American propaganda waves still echoing from the the red scare era of the 1940s and 50s. These people are the type to call literally any social safety net "communist".
America has been pulled so far to the right in the last 70+ years that the average voter now seems to think 'the left' starts at authoritarian communism.
it might be a "both sides" issue in terms of opinion polls like this, but empirically right-wing political violence in the US is consistently, statistically, and significantly, more lethal
Violence against anyone is uncalled for. I don't care who it is, unless it's a direct threat to life, violence is wrong. Encouraging people to commit violence is even worse.
What might happen if the air traffic system collapses right before/during the American Thanksgiving holiday. They're working short-staffed and without pay, but I doubt the family/personal debts are suspended.
Or, maybe it's time to invite some French speakers over to discuss the whys and hows of general strikes? Gotta watch out when people feel they have little or nothing to lose.
ATCs already tried that under Reagan. He fired all of them and they were permanently banned from ever working with the FAA again. Trump would do it in an instant.
A general strike is many industries striking in solidarity. Stock up on essentials, paralyze everything, and hold your nerve. Can't even sack anyone if the HR departments are missing or no power to the buildings.
I definitely agree. Trump is a crazy old man shaking his fist at the clouds with extreme prejudice. Unfortunately, he is backed by people whose philosophy is to shrink government to the point where it could be drowned in a bathtub.
I agree with what another poster said about bringing in some French people to teach us the importance of general strikes and shutting everything down to make our point.
Failing that, I think blue states should offer a federal tax escrow service to pay for what they've been promised but denied.
Trump already tried supplementing with military ATC. It's not the 80s, that didn't work this time (the two are too different. Everywhere is held together with it's own special duct tape). How is firing them all going to reopen anything?
America's was delivered by two births of of political violence: the American revolution and the Civil War.
I'm interested in hearing why those are justifible acts of political violence (or not political violence) whereas today's political violence is not. Surely there were folks during those times who described them as not justifible. What makes today's arguments against political violence materially different than dissenters in prior eras?
As the expression goes "The ends sanctify the means". We generally, collectively agree that the results of the Civil War (and more universally, the Revolution) were good things, and thus the actions that advanced those ends are sacred.
Contemporary events can't be judged that way: Consequentialists (typically on the left) end up judging actions by perceived probability of success weighted outcomes, which, naturally, discount modern events since the only things with certain outcomes are those in the distant past. Deontological thinkers (more typical on the right) have to condemn contempory actions as "wrong" until they can be incorporated into a larger narrative that justifies them, which again takes time.
> Most Americans expect political violence to keep growing in the United States and believe that it is likely a political candidate will be assassinated in the next few years.
Like, there have already been several assassinations! Were Gabby Giffords, Steve Scalise, or Melissa Hortman no politicians? The water is getting pretty hot.
Readit News
[1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116851119#fig01
Yes, in the sense that "the government has a monopoly on violence", and the application (or at least threat) of "violence" is needed to for a government to work (eg. tax collection, enforcement of property rights, law enforcement), but that's clearly different than "political violence" mentioned in the OP (ie. extrajudicial politically motivated killings), and pretending they're the same because they both "violence" borders on bad faith argumentation.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45803019
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45803404
Politics is the attempt to resolve public conflict, ideally with violence as a last resort (but always as a possibility).
we already have it.
In order of approximately most significant to least significant acts of political violence just in the last 6 months:
* The assassination of Melissa Hortman (D - MN House) and attempted assassinations of John Hoffman (D - MN Senate) and each of their spouses.
* The assassination attempt (arson) on Josh Shapiro (D - PA Governor)
* The assassination of Charlie Kirk (R - not a public official)
and there were several other acts of political violence in 2024 (including the attempted assassinations of Trump and of Nancy Pelosi and her husband)
The attempt in itself is not just political violence, but also provides grounds for justifying violence against "enemies."
Charlie Kirk was not an elected public official, but he was definitely still political in a way that a lot of regular Americans are political. So even if it's less significant with regard to elected officials being targeted, it was political violence that regular people felt and could conceive of being targeted with, for similar reasons as Charlie. I believe that was what made his assassination resonate with people, much more than an elected official being assassinated does.
These are all instances of political violence. The political class in the united states deemed particular populations disposable, and enacted policies that lead to excess deaths and extreme violence upon those populations. Millions in the united states live under the threat of state violence and politcally accepted exposure to premature death.
The article and comments refer to the resulting counter-violence that perpetrators of the un-remarked systemic violence may become exposed to.
But doesn’t “unhoused” sound a little too much like “unhinged?” Has anyone checked whether being referred to as a “person” might be offensive to men and women and boys and girls who have more specific identities? (this is not sarcastic)
I'm looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinated_American_... and I stand by my "subjective perspective" as remaining pretty reasonable. let me know what specifically you wanted me to plot
I think the issue is that mainstream media like movies showcases political violence as very well organized and full of manifestos when the majority of these attempts are very poorly planned and the people carrying it out clearly have mental disorders so it's very hard to pinpoint what ideology they are promoting.
I also believe that these recent attempts have showcased that the current political establishment has been doing an awful job at reconciliation and instead pouring gasoline by refusing to make a joint statements condemning the violence or making any sort of gesture that isn't blatantly bipartisan.
If you look at the political violence of the 60's and 70's in the US, there's a lot of overlap but at least the government took steps to not only keep it under control but congress actually took steps in dealing with the hot button issues. Nowadays it seems like we're just kicking the can down the road and blaming the other side for it. I mean just look at the current shutdown and tell me if this state of affairs won't result in further anger and people taking action with their own hands rather than rely on political institutions.
That was a huge "oh shit" moment. The rest of this isn't exactly a consequence of specifically what he said, but is something that one could predict from that and other things he said and did in the first election and his first term. The fact that he said what he said and that was no longer regarded as abhorrent by enough people to keep him from even getting close to the Presidency, was the sign.
Dead Comment
And yet I still have people insist it’s all “left wing Marxists” or whatever their favorite term is these days. Like we can’t even agree political violence is ratcheting up broadly and it’s a problem we ALL have to deal with.
Partisanship is a hell of a drug.
Edit: several recent attempts/successful perpetrators, including Kirk’s killer, were not clearly right or left. There have been some leftwing incidents but they are certainly fewer than others. I am not saying left wing violence is as bad as right wing violence. But it’s not all right wing anymore. That’s all I’m saying.
If you constantly try to make people angry, eventually you succeed.
Has it been? How so?
America has been pulled so far to the right in the last 70+ years that the average voter now seems to think 'the left' starts at authoritarian communism.
Or, maybe it's time to invite some French speakers over to discuss the whys and hows of general strikes? Gotta watch out when people feel they have little or nothing to lose.
I agree with what another poster said about bringing in some French people to teach us the importance of general strikes and shutting everything down to make our point.
Failing that, I think blue states should offer a federal tax escrow service to pay for what they've been promised but denied.
Dead Comment
I'm interested in hearing why those are justifible acts of political violence (or not political violence) whereas today's political violence is not. Surely there were folks during those times who described them as not justifible. What makes today's arguments against political violence materially different than dissenters in prior eras?
Contemporary events can't be judged that way: Consequentialists (typically on the left) end up judging actions by perceived probability of success weighted outcomes, which, naturally, discount modern events since the only things with certain outcomes are those in the distant past. Deontological thinkers (more typical on the right) have to condemn contempory actions as "wrong" until they can be incorporated into a larger narrative that justifies them, which again takes time.
> Most Americans expect political violence to keep growing in the United States and believe that it is likely a political candidate will be assassinated in the next few years.
Like, there have already been several assassinations! Were Gabby Giffords, Steve Scalise, or Melissa Hortman no politicians? The water is getting pretty hot.