Political Violence in 2021: How did we get here? How do we move forward?

This is a guest post from our friends at Over Zero, contributed by their Executive Director, Rachel Brown, and Regional Director, Laura Livingston.

In the wake of the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection, addressing risks for political violence remains an urgent priority. Preventing future violence requires understanding and creating resilience to the dynamics and vulnerabilities that brought us to the current moment.

The horrifying events of January 6 were neither a surprise nor something that materialized overnight. The violence was the result of mounting risk factors deeply rooted in American politics and society, including:

• democratic disillusionment and weakening institutions;
• inflammatory public rhetoric from the highest levels of government that travels far and fast via social media and messaging apps
• a growth in extremist groups and normalization of their ideologies and tactics;
• fractured trust and susceptibility to far-reaching online misinformation and conspiracy theories mainstreamed by major media personalities and politicians; and
• affective polarization, wherein political disagreements are no longer about policy issues but rather about how we feel toward those on the other side of the aisle. This polarization is also increasingly asymmetric.

COVID-19 and the related economic downturn have interacted with and compounded many of these vulnerabilities, while also exposing systemic inequities throughout the U.S.

Together, these conditions created the grievances, space, and normatively permissive environment for individuals to connect, coordinate, and undertake political violence directed at overturning the cornerstone of our democratic system of governance: free and fair elections. Absent efforts to fully understand, manage, and address these risks, we are likely to see continued incidences of political and group-targeted violence in the coming decades, as a Department of Homeland Security official recently warned.

How did we get here?: The January 6 violence was not an aberration. The Southern Poverty Law Center has documented a 55% increase in white nationalist groups in the U.S. between 2017 and 2019. Political animosities have also spiked: as of 2019, 70% of Republicans and 56% of Democrats see the other party as a “serious threat to the United States and its people,” while research found a 9-point increase in the percentage of partisans who believe it would be at least “a little bit” justified for their party to use violence to advance their political goals. Growing openness to other forms of government, including unchecked executive authority and military rule, compound these risks.

We have also seen ongoing and increasing political violence. Hate crimes have reached their highest levels in over a decade, including the racially- and ethnically-motivated shootings in El Paso and Pittsburgh. We’ve also seen violence and threats targeting public officials, including armed protests that shut down the Michigan state legislature, a plot to kidnap and assassinate Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, harassment leading public health officials to resign in droves, and the conspiracy theory-fueled violent threats against election officials in Georgia, Arizona, and Pennsylvania for refusing efforts to overturn a free and fair election. As Gabriel Sterling, a Georgia Republican elections official, warned in December, misinformation sowing doubt in our democratic processes carries predictable consequences: “Someone’s going to get hurt. Someone’s going to get shot. Someone’s going to get killed.”

Amidst these dynamics, extraordinary measures, including a significant National Guard deployment, helped ensure the absence of violence throughout the week of President Biden’s inauguration. In other words, it was not an accident that there wasn’t violence at the inauguration itself, and it is deeply concerning that we needed a military presence to ensure a peaceful transition of power. Indeed, continued violent threats, harassment, and censure targeting GOP officials committed to accountability for January 6 — whether through impeachment, criminal prosecutions, or an internal reckoning on extremism within the party — indicate these vulnerabilities are further compounding and entrenching. As a Department of Homeland Security official testified, there remains a “high likelihood” of additional domestic terrorism and continued threats of violence from far-right extremist groups: “These movements are fueled and fed by misinformation and lies that, if not addressed, will only continue to exacerbate underlying social divisions, threatening to tear the delicate fabric of our democratic culture.”

Why does this matter? The impact of violence extends far beyond physical harms, as we have written with colleagues elsewhere. Political violence can fundamentally influence whether and how people participate in democracy — intimidating voters, opposition candidates, and journalists, and creating a chilling effect on civic engagement. It can also directly target leaders who try to steer their group away from the extremes (sometimes called “in-group moderates”). This effectively silences dissenting voices, cedes more space to extremists, and drives groups farther apart, in turn depicting society as more polarized than it is. Further, political violence creates a climate of instability and chaos that can lead to a desire for order and authority, a rationale some would use to advance undemocratic forms of governance. Finally, violence can compound underlying risk factors and beget more violence. Even small-scale acts of violence can increase public support for subsequent violence.

Source: The Democracy Fund Report “The Costs of Political Violence in the United States,” 2021

Recognizing these ripple effects is critical.The U.S. is likely to experience flashpoints for ongoing political violence, including the 2022 midterm elections, as well as continued organizing and coordination among extremist groups, which may involve protests around public health restrictions and vaccination plans and ongoing efforts to address long-term structural inequities.

What does this mean for action? Addressing acute risks must happen alongside efforts to unpack and address our systemic vulnerabilities that presage political violence. This will require continued action across issue areas. Importantly, though, to truly make progress in addressing any one of these vulnerabilities — let alone their impact on political violence — we must also understand and address how these challenges intersect, influence, and even compound one another. Priorities for action include, for example:

• Democratic institutions: Efforts must address technical, institutional fixes, while also rebuilding trust in our democracy, including through addressing both the misinformation and conspiracy theories and the long-term systemic inequities and abuses (e.g. a reckoning with police violence) that sow doubt in our institutions and processes. In addition to addressing the consequences of institutional erosion and distrust, efforts must also address the impact of political violence on our institutions: the threats and violence we witnessed throughout our election cycle intimidate people away from public service careers (whether elected officials, appointed public health officials, or even volunteer poll workers) and erode participation in democracy at all levels, including voting.
• Misinformation and conspiracy theories: Misinformation and conspiracy theories have been mainstreamed — broadly shared on social media but also repeated and fueled by major media figures and politicians. This content is not arbitrary but rather tapping into and exploiting grievances, prejudices, and distrust deeply rooted throughout the country. They fuel zero sum narratives, portray groups as existential threats, undermine faith in democratic systems and processes (such as elections), and embolden extremist ideologies, groups, and even offline violence. Misinformation and conspiracy theories must be researched and addressed with an understanding of their role — and often intentional use — in fueling division, extremism, and violence. Efforts must also examine and address the social and political dynamics, including the information ecosystems, that enable these narratives to flourish.
• Systemic Racism and normalized hateful speech in public rhetoric: Hate speech and inflammatory, group-targeted public rhetoric are not occurring in a vacuum but amidst a growth in white nationalist groups and hate crimes. Efforts to counter group-targeted rhetoric and harm should work to re-stigmatize the rhetoric itself (make it less normatively acceptable), while also supporting the communities targeted by the rhetoric and related violence. Affected communities are often already engaged in efforts to address and prevent political violence and also bring critical resources not easily found elsewhere, including a real-time knowledge of local events, and the capacity, flexibility, and likelihood to take action in response to early warning signs. Ongoing work to address systemic racism and its continued impact will also be critical.
• Extremist groups operating in a permissive environment: The mainstreaming of extremist groups is happening alongside an increase in political violence, as evidenced by the Capitol insurrection and the threats and violence throughout the 2020 election season. Efforts to address the growth of extremist groups cannot solely focus on criminal sanctions for participation and/or demobilizing individuals. They must centrally address the pervasiveness of the ideologies and narratives underlying and animating these groups — racism and white supremacy, conspiracy theories, and misinformation — and the permissive environment within which they operate (including dog whistles and even direct support from politicians, for instance). Efforts must further recognize that a growth in extremist groups itself represents an increased risk of political violence.
• Polarization and attacks on in-group moderates: Polarization is shifting to being increasingly feelings-based (rather than issue-based). As this happens, efforts must address these emotional components rather than merely attempting to “bring people together” from different sides of the aisle. This can involve bolstering inclusive, cross-cutting identities that build a sense of unity across otherwise divided groups and supporting leaders committed to steering their own groups away from violence. Efforts must also acknowledge that polarization is increasingly asymmetric, with conspiracy-endorsing politicians having gained prominence within a major political party. Addressing this will involve disincentivizing the winner-takes-all, showmanship politics that reinforces polarization and drives public disillusionment with and distrust in our democratic institutions.

Conclusion: The January 6 insurrection was the crescendo of intersecting systemic vulnerabilities and acute risk factors for political violence. Absent society-wide efforts to continue unpacking and addressing these dynamics, we will continue facing heightened risks for further violence. Combatting political violence and extremism should be a shared concern for all funders who care about a healthy democracy, civil society, and social fabric, even when those funders still maintain principled disagreements on other matters, ideas, or philanthropic priorities.

Laura Livingston is the Regional Director, Europe at Over Zero, an organization committed to creating long-term societal resilience to identity-based violence and division. Her background is in the intersection of transitional justice, governance, and peacebuilding. Laura received her J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center.

Rachel Brown is the Founder and Executive Director of Over Zero, an organization that works to build resilience to identity-based violence and other forms of group-targeted harm. She is a recognized expert on confronting hateful and dangerous rhetoric and her work for the past decade has focused on using communication to prevent violent conflict around the world. Rachel authored Defusing Hate while a Fellow at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.