In an earlier post I noted the growing list of scholars who warn of parallels between historical transitions from democracy to repressive dictatorships, on the one hand, and U.S. politics today, on the other. Part of what they see has to do with the recent weakening/destruction of democratic norms, such as respect for truth-telling, rule of law and norms of fair electoral competition. Another is respect for peaceful resolution of political conflict, and the attempt to assassinate Donald Trump brings the importance of protecting that norm into sharper focus.
In Climate of Contempt I cite polling data showing that growing acceptance of violence as a way to achieve political ends is bipartisan. The assassination attempt makes it more difficult to dismiss those data. Criminals are of course responsible for their own actions. But in a nation of 330 million people the probability that a few will choose actual violence increases as social and ideological media feeds and amplifies negative partisanship 24/7. This propaganda machine keeps negative partisanship growing every bit as steadily as atmopspheric carbon levels.
It is sad that we find political violence unsurprising today, after the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise (2017), the plot to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (2020), the plot to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh (2022), the hammer attack that fractured the skull of Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s husband (2022), and now the attempted assassination of the former president.
The way political leaders from both parties react to these kinds of horrible events determines whether and how quickly our democracy continues to decline. Each act of political violence plays into one side’s jaundiced and caricatured view of the other. In response to these events, political and opinion leaders can either fan the flames of anger for political gain, or urge a return to a more civilized view of one another. But in the midst of bitter political battle, most combatants tend to follow the former rather than the latter course of action. Can we blame them? Less than 12 hours after the shooting the Associated Press was among several outlets publishing “analyses” of its electoral effects (see photo accompanying this post).
Policy and political leaders of all types, and particularly online thought leaders, need to be better about following historian Timothy Snyder’s advice to “take responsibility for what you communicate to others.” It is instinctive to want to counter cruel mockery with more cruel mockery, or hyperbole with hyperbole. But angry hyperbole feeds the propaganda machine the energy it needs to create the caricatures of our fellow citizens we see in our mind’s eye.
Populism has grown within both parties in this century, though faster and further within the GOP (so far). Populism thrives on demonizing the political enemy within. In our evenly-divided electorate each party tolerates that demonization in their own ranks because each needs every vote it can get in order to win. Perhaps each party’s establishment-moderates believe that they can control or tamp down populist excesses from within their own party. But there is a hubris about that belief, a “don’t worry, we grownups have this under control” attitude that is common during transitions to authoritarianism.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority seems not to be worrying much about democratic decline either. To the contrary, in their July 1st Trump v. U.S. decision Chief Justice Roberts characterized such worries as “fear mongering.” He did so (presumably without intended irony) in a decision that establishes a presumption of immunity for presidents who commit crimes while taking “official acts.”
Needless to say, the Court’s view of the downside risk of their decision ignores the growing chorus of experts warning about the dangers that ever-growing negative partisanship poses to our democracy. We need to strengthen the guardrails of liberal democracy, not weaken them.
The attempted assassination of Donald Trump will feed enemy-within conspiracy thinking and ends-justify-the-means thinking among Republicans. It may empower the worst instincts of the MAGA movement, or broader party efforts to purge presumed Democrats from voter rolls (see here, here, here, and here) — all based in part on the now-strengthened belief that Democrats will stop at nothing to prevent a GOP victory.[1]
None of which is to suggest Democrats and the climate coalition should stop opposing attempts to undermine the rule of law, respect for truth, and institutions of fair political competition. Nor does the assassination attempt otherwise excuse the reaction of so much of the GOP to Donald Trump’s unanimous conviction by a jury on 34 felony counts: i.e., rallying to his defense by attacking the jury, judge and prosecutor. And on the same day that the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Trump v. U.S., former Trump aid Steve Bannon held a rally in which he pledged “victory or death” alongside GOP officials before entering a federal prison to serve his criminal sentence.
Rather, the shooting does suggest that each side ought to (i) start paying more attention to the damage the propaganda machine is doing to its understanding of our politics and of each other, and (ii) stop feeding the machine the hateful rhetoric on which it thrives, and instead starve it by arguing politics with a little more precision, care and circumspection (i.e., like adults).
Chapter 6 of Climate of Contempt discusses research-based prescriptions designed to help us extricate ourselves from the centrifugual forces in today’s politics. They mostly involve changing how we acquire and process political information. To young digital natives they may sound like returning to horse-drawn carriages or rotary phones. Regardless, they represent better ways to form political beliefs and be a citizen in a democracy.
Perhaps after a cooling off period, as we all take stock of the many ways in which political violence is getting worse and worse, more people will see the value avoiding the propaganda machine, and processing political information with fellow citizens in person, and across political boundaries. — David Spence
———–
[1] Many voters act on emotion and belief. Regardless of the Trump shooter’s party affiliation and motives, the attempt on the former president’s life feeds MAGA believers’ already well-cultivated sense that they are the defenders of U.S. civilization and democracy.
In an earlier post I noted the growing list of scholars who warn of parallels between historical transitions from democracy to repressive dictatorships and U.S. politics today. Part of what they see has to do with the recent weakening/destruction of democratic norms, such as respect for truth-telling, rule of law and norms of fair electoral competition. Another is respect for peaceful resolution of political conflict, and the attempt to assassinate Donald Trump brings the importance of protecting that norm into sharper focus.
In Climate of Contempt I cite polling data showing that growing acceptance of violence as a way to achieve political ends is bipartisan. The assassination attempt makes it more difficult to dismiss those data. Criminals are of course responsible for their own actions. But in a nation of 330 million people the probability that a few will choose actual violence increases as social and ideological media feeds and amplifies negative partisanship, and do so 24/7. This propaganda machine keeps negative partisanship growing every bit as steadily as atmopspheric carbon levels.
It is sad that we find political violence unsurprising today, after the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise (2017), the plot to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (2020), the plot to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh (2022), the hammer attack that fractured the skull of Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s husband (2022), and now the attempted assassination of the former president.
The way political leaders from both parties react to these kinds of horrible events determines whether and how quickly our democracy continues to decline. Each act of political violence plays into one side’s jaundiced and caricatured view of the other. In response to these events, political and opinion leaders can either fan the flames of anger for political gain, or urge a return to a more civilized view of one another. But in the midst of bitter political battle, most and other combatants tend to follow the former rather than the latter course of action. Can we blame them? Less than 12 hours after the shooting the Associated Press was among several outlets publishing analyses of its electoral effects (see photo accompanying this post).
Policy and political leaders of all types, and particularly online thought leaders, need to be better about following historian Timothy Snyder’s advice to “take responsibility for what you communicate to others.” It is instinctive to want to counter cruel mockery with more cruel mockery, or hyperbole with hyperbole; and as I note in chapter 4 of my book Democrats and Republicans alike have used political rhetoric that could incite violence. But angry hyperbole feeds the propaganda machine the energy it needs to create the caricatures of our fellow citizens we see in our mind’s eye.
Populism has grown within both parties in this century, though faster and further within the GOP (so far). Populism thrives on demonizing a political enemy within. In our evenly-divided electorate each party tolerates that demonization in teir own ranks because each needs every vote it can get in order to win. Perhaps each party’s establishment-moderates believe that they can control or tamp down populist excesses from within their own party. But there is a hubris about that belief, a “don’t worry, we grownups have this under control” attitude that is also common during transitions to authoritarianism.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority seems not to be worrying much about democratic decline either. To the contrary, in their July 1st Trump v. U.S. decision Chief Justice Roberts characterized such worries as “fear mongering.” He did so (presumably without intended irony) in a decision that establishes a presumption of immunity for presidents who commit crimes while taking “official acts.”
Needless to say, the Court’s view of the downside risk of their decision ignores the growing chorus of experts warning about the dangers that ever-growing negative partisanship poses to our democracy. We need strengthen the guardrails of liberal democracy, not weaken them.
The attempted assassination of Donald Trump will feed enemy-within conspiracy thinking and ends-justify-the-means thinking among Republicans. It may empower the worst instincts of the MAGA movement, or broader party efforts to purge presumed Democrats from voter rolls (see here, here, here, and here) — all based in part on the now-strengthened belief that Democrats will stop at nothing to prevent a GOP victory.[1]
None of which is to urge Democrats and the climate coalition to stop opposing or to quietly accept attempts to undermine the rule of law, respect for truth, and institutions of fair political competition. But it is to suggest that each side ought to (i) start paying more attention to the damage the propaganda machine is doing to its understanding of our politics and of each other, and (ii) stop feeding the machine the hateful rhetoric on which it thrives, and instead starve it by arguing politics with a little more precision, care and circumspection — i.e., like adults.
Nor does the assassination attempt excuse the reaction of the GOP to Donald Trump’s unanimous conviction by a jury on 34 felony counts. But it has amplified this danger, as most of the GOP was already rallying to his defense by attacking the jury, judge and prosecutor. And on the same day that the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Trump v. U.S., former Trump aid Steve Bannon held a rally in which he pledged “victory or death” alongside GOP officials before entering a federal prison to serve his criminal sentence.
Chapter 6 of Climate of Contempt discusses research-based prescriptions designed to help us extricate ourselves from the centrifgual forces in today’s politics. They mostly involve changing how we acquire and process political information. To young digital natives they may sound like returning to horse-drawn carriages or rotary phones. And next week’s GOP convention will seething with anger, perhaps understandably so.
But after a cooling off period, perhaps as take stock of the many ways in which political violence is getting worse and worse, more will see the value avoiding the propaganda machine, and processing political information with fellow citizens in person, and across political boundaries. — David Spence
———–
[1] Many voters act on emotion and belief. Regardless of the Trump shooter’s party affiliation and motives, the attempt on the former president’s life feeds MAGA believers’ already well-cultivated sense that they are the defenders of U.S. civilization and democracy.
