Poll: Americans increasingly justifying political violence
axios.com
axios.com
Yeah, well, "can at times" is a weasel expression. Maybe next time don't ask weasel questions.
This poll doesn't highlight polarization. It highlights polling minus a clue.
Or does anyone seriously believe that no government action in history has ever justified violence?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution#Examples_a...
Or is North Carolina's constitution now too "radical" for American politics?
To a new breed of globalists, yes. Populism is a bad word now, remember?
not in literally all of history but I'm pretty close to 'virtually never justifies violence'. A political culture that justifies violence as a tool against sovereign authority I think effectively makes a country ungovernable and also practically sparks more and more violence, often directed inwards.
I mean that’s almost tautological, right? There’s only the barest of lines between “sovereign authority” and “governing”.
The key is that you replace the authority with one that doesn’t justify violence. (Which I’m not saying is trivial, but lots of groups have done it reasonably well.)
I would say the opposite. Violence is always justified against a non-democratic government (virtually all governments historically), as non-democratic governments have no basis for legitimacy other than having been the most successful at applying violence.
Second reason is, I don't think most non-democratic governments hold power due to application of violence (few exceptions, mostly small). If the people of China decided to march on Beijing tomorrow nothing in the world could stop them, they've done so in the past. The reason they don't is that they see the government as legitimate, even if not democratic. Basically the same way corporations work. Very few are democratic, but they're not really upheld by physical force. The Catholic Church still has non-democratic legitimacy over a billion people. Clearly that's not because of the 500 Swiss Guard members in the Vatican.
Their interests as defined by who if not the constituency themselves? Legitimacy comes only from the consent of the governed, i.e. democracy.
That is utterly untrue. Have you seen the "Tank Man" photo [1]?
>While a 2015 survey found no significant partisan divide when it comes to the question of justified violence against the government, the new poll identified a sharper rise on the right — with 40 percent of Republicans and 41 percent of independents saying it can be acceptable. The view was held by 23 percent of Democrats, the survey finds.
It also specifies "against the government" which is way different than against fellow citizens. This is basically asking if you think citizens have a right to fight against perceived tyranny. Republicans and Independents skew anti-government in general
> What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
I’m surprised it’s so low.
> Yeah, well, "can at times" is a weasel expression. Maybe next time don't ask weasel questions.
> ...Or does anyone seriously believe that no government action in history has ever justified violence?
Also you have to remember the America was literally founded with "violence against the government" [aka the British Crown]. To answer "no" to that poll question is to basically reject American independence.
Here’s Thomas Jefferson on the subject:
> And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.
Note the part where he says "the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them," rather than to encourage and justify it on principle.
As often happens with quotes of the founding fathers, the actual argument being made is more nuanced than the quote suggests. While Thomas Jefferson believed in the spirit of rebellion as necessary, he also understood that an ignorant and uneducated populace could be led astray by misinformation, and that such rebellions in practice were more often than not the result of a failure of the civil and cultural systems of trust which should have prevented them.
"(...) yet where does this anarchy exist? where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? and can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. they were founded in ignorance, not wickedness.
god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.
we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them."
It doesn't make sense that "them" refers to the rulers, in context it obviously refers to the people taking arms.
Let's say there's a group of people that has decided to round up a few specific groups, concentrate them in camps, and then systematically execute them.
Is it more moral to just let it happen, or use force to prevent it?
(Just to note the nazi concentration camps were not any part of the motivation for the allies in WW2, they were perfectly content letting it happen until the Axis invaded. We can see almost exactly the same thing with the Uyghurs in China today)
This isn't to say the reverse can't also be true: a person using violence against the state because they're committing a robbery, but again that leads to questions of morality - the classic primary school question: if a friend is dying, and someone has a cure but my friend can't afford it, is it morally right for me to steal it to save my friend?
Anyway, a lot of this is the fairly standard philosophy question of what is morality? The answer to that question depends on the framework you're using, personal values, etc
My main point was stating an absolute: "no violence is always the morally correct choice" is not necessarily true
For that reason, it's my opinion that the rage experienced on the American political stage is not due primarily to the news media, but due to authoritarian political strains on both the left and the right. Everyone feels attacked from all angles because we have politicians trying to spy on your phone calls and internet activity, make the encryption that keeps you safe and free online less secure, ban you from getting married via constitutional amendment, force you to say or not say certain words, force you to get vaccinated, force you to accept political messaging from the leadership without being allowed to respond in kind, force you to serve in the military longer than you agreed (stoploss), force you to carry a pregnancy to term, force you force you FORCE YOU! to comply with the ruling orthodoxy of the day.
The root problem isn't that people want to respond to this with violence. The root problem is that people don't recognize the violence being perpetrated by the state. The Louisville chief of police directs a no-knock warrant, Breonna Taylor ends up dead in the inevitable clash, and the low level officers executing the warrant are made scapegoats instead of putting the politicians who made this happen into the electric chair.
I pray every day for this country not to erupt in further violence. But I fear with every fiber of my being that it will be inevitable unless the political leadership takes stock of what they are doing to the people.
It definitely was not always this way in the USA, this is very different than what you would have found even 20 years ago.
In addition to seeming possibly threatening for those of us not on the white right, I think it demonstrates that people "mad as hell who aren't going to take it anymore" are largely finding a home on the right and not the left. Again, it wasn't always this way. Somehow what anti-systemic left may exist is no longer visible or accessible.
> The new poll found that 40% of Republicans and 41% of independents said violence can be acceptable, compared with 23% of Democrats. Forty percent of white Americans said violence can be justified, compared with 18% of Black Americans.
> Flashback: The percentage of adults who said violence is justified was 23% in 2015 and 16% in 2010 in polls by CBS News and the New York Times respectively, according to the Post.
That doesn't mean no "Democrats" think so, just relative.
But I'm responding to this survey data. Which still could not mean what I said even if valid data, sure. For instance, since it was about "Democrats" vs "Republicans" not "left" and "right", maybe it says nothing about left vs right but just that those who are inclined toward political violence on the right identify with the Republican party but those on the left who do don't identify with the Democratic party. For instance, even if it's true those occupying blocks in Portland would have thought they were engaging in political violence, I'm not sure how of them considered themselves "Democrats".
I am interpreting this survey within my overall worldview, it's true. But it's those numbers from the survey I was responding to, per your question.
>For instance, even if it's true those occupying blocks in Portland would have thought they were engaging in political violence, I'm not sure how of them considered themselves "Democrats".
It's a matter of framing. Many "Democrats" saw leftist riots as protests not violence.
I was a in a crowd of protesters that had guns pointed at us by a group of white right PB/3%/OK last summer in Portland that were occupying a block. I realize you are probably talking about the protests to end police violence and call for accountability, but I think you're mixing up who's protesting what. PB's come to town and occupy blocks regularly, they aren't fighting for social justice, the are simply fighting against social justice.
> Not that I agree with either side.
Do you know what the sides are? Because it's rather shocking that you would say that, esp. about Portland.
I'm from a communist state where my family was oppressed for being part of a "colonizer/capitalist" ethnicity. I know first hand that many leftists have adopted these narratives and view me in a hateful and dehumanizing manner. I'm well aware of leftist/postmodern narratives. The question is how many of you are and do you care?
>PB's come to town and occupy blocks regularly, they aren't fighting for social justice, the are simply fighting against social justice.
I realize there are multiple sides which I've implied in the original post. I don't think it's accurate to say they are "fighting against social justice". They have their own sense of social justice even if misguided.
At the end of the day both sides have a common root cause for their grievances. Millennials and Gen Z have been screwed by the previous generations and are operating in a regressive state as a result. Something like communists vs fascists in pre-war Germany but not exactly. Point is neither side is the root cause of the others issues.
2020 left me with the unshakeable feeling that political activism of all kinds in Portland has been displaced by LARPing.
The violent white right, otoh, had always existed and always been the same set of paranoid authoritarian lunatics. The fact that they've made inroads into the middle classes is a bad sign, and one which usually precedes military fascist coups in less long-standing democracies. But their ability to radicalize and foment anti-government violence is now used by the left to justify violence and vice versa.
Things will not improve until Twitter bans EVERYBODY.
The anti-government sentiment among Democrats, which was pretty healthy during Bill Clinton, or say Howard Dean, seems to have almost collapsed post Obama. I would chalk that up to the party becoming more reliant on immigrants to win elections.
To see how much the political discourse has simplified, look up the old debates or political talk shows from the 60s-90s. Respectful disagreement and fact-based argumentation used to be common.
I hope that 10 years from now, once all the dust is settled, we will be able to hold accountable the people who really caused this catastrophe: the news media. There is no question in my mind that their hyperbole, lying, and greed are the thing polarizing people most of all. I mean, in the past 5 years, they have just moved to blatant propaganda and lies. These lunatics are going to get people hurt, and I hope the people responsible face a harsh punishment for inciting civil unrest.
Who do you think is going to start the violence?
> who really caused this catastrophe: the news media
There may be some truth to that, but surely we expect individuals to have some responsibility for their own ideological position and treatment of people they believe they disagree with?
Both political parties have committed atrocities and are equally complicit in the current state of affairs. Tribalism will not solve this.
Please respect each other and do not accelerate our national divide.
Very much both sides have committed atrocities.