Domestic Terrorism – The New York Times

by nyljaouadi1
0 comment

Want to get The Morning by email? Here’s the sign-up.

Three years ago, the polling firm YouGov asked Americans whether they thought it could ever be justified for their political party to use violence to advance its goals. The overwhelming response was no. Only 8 percent of people said anything other than “never.”

This year, YouGov asked the same question — and the share saying that political violence could be somewhat justified roughly doubled. The increase spanned both Democratic and Republican respondents.

I thought of that alarming finding yesterday, after law enforcement officials charged 13 men with a violent plot that included storming the Michigan State Capitol and kidnapping Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. Conservative groups have criticized Whitmer for her attempts to control the coronavirus by restricting normal activities. In April, President Trump tweeted, “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!”

Yesterday’s arrests are the latest evidence that a small but meaningful number of Americans believe that violence is the only answer to the country’s political divisions. “We’re seeing more and more citizens expressing openness to violence as more and more partisan leaders engage in the kinds of dehumanizing rhetoric that paves the way for taking violent action,” Lee Drutman, one of the political scientists who oversaw the YouGov poll, told me.

Since May, more than 50 people have driven vehicles into peaceful protesters. Armed protesters shut down the Michigan legislature in May. Armed groups on the left and right have done battle in Oregon and Wisconsin. Extremists have attacked journalists, including an instance in Brooklyn on Wednesday night.

“Political violence in democracies often seems spontaneous: an angry mob launching a pogrom, a lone shooter assassinating a president,” Rachel Kleinfeld of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently wrote in The Washington Post. “But in fact, the crisis has usually been building for years.” She added, “This is where America is now.”

It’s important to note that the problem is bipartisan — and also that it is not equally bad on both sides: The American right today has a bigger violence problem than the American left. Of the 42 killings by political extremists last year, right-wing extremists committed 38, according to the Anti-Defamation League.

And top Republican politicians have encouraged violence in ways no prominent Democrat has. Greg Gianforte, a Republican congressman now running to be Montana’s governor, pleaded guilty to assaulting a reporter who asked a question he didn’t like in 2017.

Trump, for his part, has encouraged violence against protesters at his rallies and has often refused to condemn violent white-supremacist groups, including during last week’s debate. Whitmer, speaking after the arrests yesterday, cited that debate: “Hate groups heard the president’s words not as a rebuke, but as a rallying cry, a call to action,” she said.

Political scientists emphasize that the drift toward violence is not inevitable. When political leaders denounce violence, it often influences public opinion, research suggests. These denouncements are especially effective when leaders — or individuals — criticize their own side for engaging in violence. Condemning the other side is easy.

“Outbreaks of political violence are a real threat,” Brendan Nyhan, a government professor at Dartmouth, has written. “Every person of good faith in either party must speak up.”

For more on Michigan: The Detroit News reported that some of the plot’s conspirators met during a Second Amendment rally at the Michigan State Capitol in June. And one expert told The Detroit Free Press that Michigan “has always been a hotbed for militia activity.”

The 2020 Campaign

  • A Morning read: Online orders have surged for retailers in the pandemic, as curbside pickup helps Americans satisfy their desire to hop in a car and drive to the store. What started as a coronavirus stopgap is likely to have a permanent impact on the way people shop.

  • Lives Lived: He was the son of a public school custodian and an emergency room nurse who grew up to become one of the great chroniclers of New York life. He crusaded against injustice and covered 9/11, the police, the subway, the coronavirus and more for six daily newspapers. Our colleague Jim Dwyer has died at 63.

Carlos Lozada, a Pulitzer Prize-winning book critic for The Washington Post, set himself a daunting (and arguably masochistic) task a few years ago: He decided to read every book that said something meaningful about the Trump era.

Ultimately, he has read more than 150 — books by the president’s most ardent defenders and harshest critics, as well as those about the larger forces that helped create Trumpism. Lozada has just published his own book about the experience, “What Were We Thinking.” One of its central points is that the best Trump books aren’t the obvious Trump books.

“The books I found most useful and enlightening in the Trump area have not necessarily been about Trump himself, but about the fights the country has always had in defining and redefining itself,” Lozada told me. Those books include Jennifer Silva’s “We’re Still Here,” about the rural working class; Erika Lee’s “America for Americans,” about immigration; and others you can find mentioned toward the end of this excerpt. (He lists 12 in his epilogue.)

Some parts of Trumpism may quickly fade when his presidency ends. But many of the toughest arguments will not, Lozada suggests: What’s the right level of immigration? What should the future of policing look like? And what about voting rights, the Supreme Court and the state of America’s democracy?

Source link

Related Posts

Leave a Comment