The rarity of American political violence

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - 8:29 AM Share

As Ian Bremmer announced over at The Call, Eurasia Group recently released their top risks for 2011. Coming at no. 7 is the U.S. political system: "In 2011, headline risk will be driven by both parties loudly promoting priorities for which there is no path forward."

It's telling that political risk assessments need to be used for the United States, but not surprising. The U.S. political system does not always work terribly well.

The events of the past week would appear to expand that sentiment to U.S. political culture, however, which is several cognitive leaps too far. For example, Gideon Rachman compares the murder of a Punjabi governor in Pakistan to the attempted assassination of Arizona congresswoman Gabby Giffords:

Events in both Pakistan and America suggest what happens when you not only disagree with your political opponents - but when you demonise them as enemies of the faith or the nation. At that point, some may conclude that it is legitimate to end the argument with bullets.

Sigh… let's all take a few deep breaths, shall we?

Let's turn to Lexington's response to Rachman:

Well yes, America could become like Pakistan if people concluded that it was legitimate to settle arguments with bullets. But in America, where guns are plentiful and political and religious feelings intense, the telling thing is that almost no one at all considers political violence to be legitimate. The killings have been met with universal condemnation by ordinary Americans and the whole political class. The violent act of one probably deranged individual doesn't show that America is heading down the same road as Pakistan. And the response to it suggests that the political cultures of the two countries are fundamentally different.

Indeed, seen in historical context, Adam Serwer points out that the United States' political culture has trended away from violence:

Political violence in the United States has never been more illegitimate. There was a time when a member of Congress could walk into the Senate and beat a political rival senseless and walk away unmolested. The South was once a place of unrestrained terrorist violence conducted with the tacit approval of local authorities. Even when those authorities were brave or responsible enough to press charges, securing guilty verdicts would be difficult because of a local culture willing to accept crimes committed in service to white supremacy. We live in a time where no major political movement would be willing to openly justify such behavior.

This is why, in the aftermath of the incident, both the left and right began placing the blame on the other side.

Finally, we get to James Pethokoukis:

[P]olitical violence has been rare in the United States in recent years. That's despite the disputed 2000 presidential election, the unpopular Iraq war and the election of the first black president. Indeed, the World Bank ranks America above the UK when it comes to "political stability and absence of violence." And the U.S. rank has actually been on the rise in recent years.

There's going to be a rollicking debate about whether political vitriol contributes to political violence. Fine. But let's put things in perspective -- extremist rhetoric or not, this kind of thing is blessedly rare in the American polity.

EXPLORE:CULTURE, CULTURE, MEDIA, POLITICS, CONGRESS, PAKISTAN, PUBLIC OPINION, UNITED STATES
 

ALEXBC

2:04 AM ET

January 12, 2011

Indeed

Gideon Rachman is almost hysterical in his appetite for signs of American decline. Thank you for introducing sanity back into the debate, by pointing out how illegitimate political violence seems even to heavily armed, 2nd Amendment loving Americans.

 

ENLISTENZ

6:58 AM ET

January 12, 2011

I'm glad that it isn't political extremism

Can I still be sad that our country doesn't have much in the way of prevention of things like this? Because dangerously insane people are not getting any treatment and buying guns and ammo easily? Do 2nd Amendment advocates really think that that's what the founder's intended?

 

ZORRO

2:51 PM ET

January 12, 2011

That Something Is Allowed...

..., and should be allowed, like Palin's maps or the Muhammed caricatures does not mean that we can not be critical of it.
Violent imagery and, what some consider, blasphemy is hardly necessary most of the time.
Most of the time it just seems like a desperate attempt to gain attention in the media.

 

BSPAG

9:24 PM ET

January 12, 2011

A poor test case

The actions of one mentally disturbed man makes a terrible test for all the hypothesis about political culture, gun control, right-wing rhetoric, heavy metal, etc.

 

CEOUNICOM

8:13 PM ET

January 13, 2011

GROAN...

""Events in both Pakistan and America suggest what happens when you not only disagree with your political opponents... ""

Riiiight.

Except that *there is no single political connection to the Loughner murder*.

This whole thing about how Loughner was 'motivated by the increasingly violent rhetoric of American politics' has been the most ridiculous, media-invented pile of horse-pucky in recent memory... and that's saying a *lot*.

Every columnist on the NYT has writtem editorials decrying the political motivations of the murder... despite NO EVIDENCE. The President calls out for "greater civility in US politics".... when the event had NOTHING TO DO with either Politics or 'civility'. The fact that every media organization has used the shootings to advance their own reasons why 'Sarah Palin is an Idiot' (no argument here! - but umm...those people who got *shot*? I dont think Sarah Palin shot them,,, so....WTF ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT!??!

Seriously. This ridiculous media hijacking of the event and turning it into a projected microcosm of the endless TEAM RED VS TEAM BLUE contest is shameful and disgusting. People are already accepting this version of events as 'established fact', even when the more anyone actually learns about the shooter, the less it appears to have any basis in reality at all. The story is now less about the actual shooting, or the actual motivations of the shooter, but rather *the story about the story*.... where people started blaming each other for using words like "Killing the Health Care Bill", or "targeting" candidates to upset their elections... its so solipsistic and ridiculous. I'm embarrassed for most people in the media for participating in this idiocy. AND BTW, FP... you guys have contributed too, with varying mixes of relevance and BS injection. Examples have included:

- Kathryn Olmstead provides a (no really, its relevant!) survey of the history of 'conspiracy theories'... although all we know about the connection of 'conspiracies' to the shooting is that the guy ... well he thought the moon landing was faked. How *germane*! 2 paragraphs relevant to shooting...8 about 'stuff I sorta like to write about!'

- Rothkoph goes *meta* on the whole thing = "It is not what actually happened that is important but how it is perceived." Yes David. I will send your condolences to the dead 9yr old. It's about "our celebration of hate politics"... even though the shooter "hated" the congresswoman for *not answering a nonsensical question about how "Words Have No Meaning". You know Dave, maybe the real meta narrative here is about the relevance of Jaques Derrida and Sausseure to contemporary politics?? Why not expand on that...

- Ricks = "It's an attack on our System".... Thankfullly he doesn't even try to explain *how* really...., but just fulminates about if our country can't keep "crazy people" from buying guns (even though, you know, the guy had never seen a psychiatrist, wasnt on meds, was never diagnosed with anything)...well, we're a failure as a nation, or something. I suppose his implied solution is a nationwide program of gun-shop psychiatrists to perform spot-check Rorshach tests, and ask them about their mothers...

- Feaver wins the "Least Stupid" award... sorta. maybe we should call it the "No S**t Sherlock" Award... for his You-Don't-Say Headline, ""Is there a foreign-policy angle to the Tucson shooting? Not really."" Unfortunately it took him 650 words to convince himself of the apparently obvious.

And I'm sure i'm missing some noteworthy commentary as well...

Seriously guys. You make me want to chastise you like I'm your Mom..."Just because *everyone else is doing it*, does that mean you have to do it too??"" I hope the journalistic Massacrcebation wears off soon, and you all look back in slight embarrassment at having been caught up in such shoddy stuff .

 

CEOUNICOM

10:58 PM ET

January 13, 2011

Sorry, a footnote

I will say you here Dan do a good job with the issue... at least in that you're pointing out that most of the commentary surrounding the event is overblown, and perhaps reaches conclusions that in truth aren't really backed up by fact. I just wanted to clarify...I'm not exasperated with *you* ... just that much of the commentary thus far by others in the media and (sadly) at FP has been overdone, and on many occasions mock-worthy...

I will also add I did not coin the term 'massacrebation'; someone else who shall remain nameless hit on it like 2 days ago in reference to the nature of much of the Tuscon coverage.

 

AJANSMAGIC

6:12 PM ET

January 24, 2011

Thnks


Kuluhana Hotel

Mina Dan??manl?k

Ajans Magic

Geli?im Meslek

Winstar Cam Balkon

Set Rent Acar

Art?han Mimarl?k

Nutritalya

Öz Uzman Sürücü Kursu

 

Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Read More