Taking the Politics Out of Politics
Is it Time for a Change?
A controversial Presidential candidate is touring the country. Wherever he goes, protesters jeer and heckle from inside and outside the event. The supporters are just as dedicated as the protesters. Violence breaks out both inside and outside the event. Local law enforcement is forced to intervene to protect both life and the freedom of protest. Sound familiar?
We could recall previous events where even members of the media were violently assaulted inside the venue by supporters. The candidate is not blameless — many comments are indirect or direct calls to violent action such as “If some anarchist lies down in front of my automobile, it will be the last automobile he will ever lie down in front of.”
What face popped into your head as you read that? Was it a billionaire businessman or reality TV personality? A former first lady? Actually, that’s a reference to the infamous 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago and George Wallace’s third party Presidential campaign.
A look into political campaign history provides additional examples of violence in the political theater. In an interview with ABC News, University of Denver Professor Erica Chenoweth stated that violence was a common part of political events prior to the World Wars.
After the contentious politics of the late sixties and early seventies, political violence appeared to abate. Of course, political protests continued during that time. But why does it seem different now? The Atlantic magazine recently published an article, “The Violence to Come,” in which the author suggests that the 2008 election was different because protesters took direct action against a candidate who held the same ideology. The protesters did not disrupt their opponent’s events. Rather, they took direct action against “their” candidate because the protesters felt their candidate wasn’t doing enough.
So let’s take a look at the recent violence on both sides of the political spectrum. You have violence from both protesters and supporters. This violence is directed not only at those who are ideologically different, but also against those who hold similar views. It is a different context for political events. Now, if a political leader differs from a protester to either side of the political spectrum, they could be subject to direct action possibly involving violence even from those who most would call a “supporter.”
Most employed in the Homeland Security enterprise probably work for an elected official or an appointed leader. Knowing the political ties to our work, can we effectively advocate for public safety at political events and remain neutral? For a controversial political figure, opposition rallies can be expected. But how are we planning for violent actions by those who support the political leader?
One solution is to develop a risk assessment based on political views of a candidate or elected official as compared to the regional populace. For example, if Fidel Castro visits the United States during the relations normalization process, your public safety risk assessment may be a lot different for Miami versus Los Angeles.
Another option is to develop those professional relationships with not only your elected officials, but also with political activist groups from both the supporting and opposing sides. We can do this by simply giving them an opportunity to peacefully express their views. Of course, there are some activist groups whose sole intent is disruption, attention or violence. For example, see Code Pink’s call to action for “raising a ruckus” at the upcoming party conventions. How would you engage in dialogue with this group or with the elected official on both sides of the political aisle?
While some may argue that political extremism is nothing new, most would probably agree that the political environment is becoming more polarizing. This shift in the political landscape requires that the Homeland Security professional, who may try to remain apolitical in many respects, recognizes the part that politics play in public events.
Disconnecting oneself from personal political views and instead regarding your community’s political make up as another risk factor is important when estimating the potential for violence. As with most Homeland Security issues, relationship development is key to advising the public, politicians and activists on how to (hopefully) prioritize personal safety over politics.
