A Civil War? No

 A rash of stories about the decline of our democracy and the possibility of a civil war.  See this in the New Yorker.

I'm not worried.  We've seen more risky circumstances in the past.  We forget the level of violence associated with labor unionization and the racism of the last century. We should be able to remember the divisions and violence of the late 60's and 70's, but we don't.

Our current polarization is different than in the past, but I don't think it's that likely to lead to wide-spread violence.  

If I'm to make a prediction, I'd say the level of racial/political motivated violence over the next 10 years won't rise above the level of past violence--i.e., homicides won't reach record levels. 

The Lessons of Northern Ireland

 Half my ancestry is from Northern Ireland, my cousin has written on the history of Ulster, and I remember the start of the Troubles there, when the Catholic/Sinn Fein movement seemed in tune with the student movements in France and Germany, not to mention our civil rights movement.

Bottom line--I've tracked developments there with more interest than elsewhere in Europe or the world for that matter.  To me it's an object lesson in human nature, a lesson to put alongside the lesson from Israel/Palestine and the various racial and ethnic conflicts here and abroad.  People are able to discern differences in fine distinctions and often use them as the basis for enmity. Such patterns tend to endure through time, and often lead to vicious cycles of eye for an eye. 

(Watch the TV series Fauda for another example of the same.)

Here's the Times on the current status. It also seems that there's a cycle at work--the young get riled up, get violent, get exhausted, and there's less violence for a while until a new generation comes along. 

A Bad Tuesday Evening- Unexpected Violence?

Some are worried by the possibility of  violence resulting from the 2020 election.  Their fears seem mostly to be that Trump supporters will be upset by a Biden victory and commit some violence.  The fear is of "sore losers" I suppose it's possible that some on the right have a similar "sore loser" fear of violence coming from Biden supporters if Trump pulls off another upset. 

As a general proposition I'm not that afraid of the scenario. But there is one which I just thought of which scares me.

I remember occasions, I think mostly when a college wins either the NCAA football or basketball championship where the students take to the streets and riot, destroying property, etc.  We normally dismiss such episodes, at least I dismiss them, as "boys will be boys".

But, there's a lot of emotion invested in the outcome of this election. Isn't it more likely that election violence will come from "exultant winners"?  I remember the election of 2008, when the winners exulted.  That was a victory of love, of belief in Obama, of the redemption of America, and I don't remember any particular violence, or animosity directed towards McCain supporters.

But a Biden victory on Tuesday would be a victory based on a lot of animosity towards Trump, and some of his supporters. 

I always like a metaphor, so think of the exultant winners and despondent losers as two masses of plutonium, back in the days of the Manhatten Project.  Keep them separate and everything is copasetic.  Bring them together and you get a nuclear explosion.

Violence in Politics

 A survey has shown that more Americans believe violence in politics is sometimes permissible.

I think the survey is flawed, as surveys often are. In this case there's no definition of what violence is--are we talking about a demonstration resulting in broken windows, or broken bones, or a revolution.

In the broad sense if we believe in classic American history, in which the American Revolution became a light to the world, wehave to concede a place for violence.

Violence

 Up to now I've been optimistic on the state of the nation's politics, saying today isn't as bad as many fear.

I may be in the process of changing my mind.  I remember the conflicts in the 60's and 70's between the Weathermen and the Black Panthers and the hard hats of some unions. There was violence then, lots of bombs.  But I don't remember the group conflicts then.  The groups on the left were anti-establishment, and often still adhered to the ethic of nonviolence--although a few were killed, the bombings weren't intended to kill. The Black Panthers and police/law enforcement had violent clashes in which people died.  But except for union hard hats disrupting anti-war demonstrations there was little left-right violence with the police caught in the middle.  

That seems to be what's changing.  And what's dangerous is the likelihood of escalation--paint guns and rocks and fists can move to knives and guns, first displayed, then used.  That sort of dynamic is inherent in people, and it's dangerous.

I'm worried.

Fads and Social Contagion

First we have the guy in Kentucky  who shot two people, then the mad bomber of the van who sent bombs to various people on the left of Trump, and currently the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter who's more right than Trump.

I find some solace in the idea these three events are examples of social contagion, of fads.  It's similar to the spread of anti-vaccine theories, or the sudden popularity of a set of names for newborns.  Somehow we humans are monkey-see, monkey-do (with my apologies to our simian cousins) people.  I'm not sure whether we just like to follow the path beaten down by others or also we like to outdo each other. 

Where does rhetoric come into play?  I'm not sure.  Maybe it's similar to a flu or measles epidemic.  One condition, necessary but not sufficient, is the existence of an unvaccinated population, a set of people closely connected enough to support the spread of a disease.  The other condition is the introduction of a carrier of a virus/bacteria which is infectious. 

But the metaphor isn't good enough--there's just two conditions going on.  With our recent events there's more conditions: the availability of guns, the availability of bomb technology (knowledge and materials), the existence of people somewhat (or very) nutty, the knowledge that others share the feelings and conceivably can be impressed by deeds, the triggering event, etc.

Our Easily Forgotten Past Divisions

I've tweeted to this effect, but Noah Smith does a thread on the same point: American history is filled with episodes of violence and division. 

Humans Can Be Evil

From Techmology Review piece on robotics:

But the trickiest foe these robots face while out in the world could be the most difficult to predict: teenagers. Hitch says teen shoppers have been known to kick the robots in Walmart, or even slam into them with a shopping cart.

The Uses of Violence?,

Josh Marshall has a post discussing violence against the alt-right.  He's against it, arguing that it's works to the benefit of the far right and undermines the rule of law.

While I'm with him on that, he doesn't pay enough attention to the seduction of violence, although he does admit he enjoys seeing a Nazi punched.  Most any football fan will say they enjoy a "good hit" on the opposing quarterback, running back, or receiver.  That's human--we like violence against our opponents (though we'll be sure to call for a flag if our quarterback, running back, or receiver is on the receiving end of a "vicious, illegal hit").

The antifa types seem to be much the same demographic as the alt-right: young males, though perhaps with a few more females and a sprinkling of people of color you wouldn't see in the alt-right.  But extremism attracts the similar people on both ends, although the left perhaps has a more intellectual gloss to their actions.  I suspect if you could do a brain scan of either group in the midst of an action, a march or a counter-demonstration, you'd see the same areas of the brain activated, areas which have little to do with rational thought.

Revisionists of the One-Third Thesis

I learned relatively early, perhaps even in high school some 60 years ago, that one-third of the white American colonists supported independence, one-third supported Britain, and one-third were confused moderates.

From this review of a book on the American Revolution comes a counter, arguing that the support for the Revolution was only about one-sixth and:

In their light, the Revolution looks less like a popular uprising than a coup d’etat. The always-mystifying questions of how a band of ragtag rebels dared challenge the mightiest martial power on the planet and how they succeeded in doing so loom even more mystifyingly in the light of such modest popular support. And the role of coercion and violence in the maintenance of the war effort seem more than ever in need of serious examination.

Looking at the Revolution in the context of modern use of violence, maybe one-sixth is more accurate.  Certainly a lot of revolts seem to have been the work of minorities (i.e., the "Troubles" in Ulster, Tunisia, Libya, Syria, etc. 

No Violence, Please

Having lived through 1968, I'm maybe a bit more sensitive to violent protests at political functions.  I hope the scenes outside Trump's rally as described by Molly Ball here fade away as the summer continues, but I won't bet on it.

[Update: Josh Marshall observes that last night's (6/2/16) violence was well documented; everyone not involved was taking cellphone videos/pics.  Hopefully that enables prosecution and puts a lid on the violent trend.]

On Violence and Wealth

Got involved in a comment thread at Ta-Nehesi Coates' blog yesterday, particularly with a commenter who argued wealth was the key factor in whether a neighborhood was violent or not.  Since the thread has dwindled to an end, I thought I'd post a thought experiment here:

Consider all the professional athletes in the US, many are in the top 1 percent of income, most of the rest would be in the top 5 percent.  The athletes come from varied backgrounds, but few come from parents who themselves were in the top 5 percent.  I'd love to see a sociologist determine the violent crime rate among such athletes with the crime rate in enclaves of the 5 percent, and the average background of the athletes (say 30th percentile?).  I suspect, but don't know, that the rate of the athletes would be closer to the 5 percent rate than to  the rate of the 30th percentile, which would be the influence of wealth, but there would still be a significant difference, which would be the influence of culture/society and other factors.

Some Statistics on Threats

I posted yesterday wishing that the Obama administration would post statistics on threats.  Today the Post has a piece on threats to Social Security Administration's personnel. The number of threats has gone from 897 in 2007 FY to 2,336 in 2010FY. The administrative judges, who deliver decisions on eligibility, such as eligibility for disability benefits, feel especially insecure.


This Politico article reports on statistics of threats to Congresspeople, while this was yesterday's Post piece.

Seems to me there's a valid argument possible that political rhetoric and mudracking media stir antagonism to the establishment, which should show up pretty directly in the threat and assault statistics.  Of course, the big question is what other factors could be involved?  For example, in the case of SSA, people who are out of work due to the Great Bush Recession could be expressing, not political anger, but economic frustration.  That's why we need a long term project to gather and display such statistics.