Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Violence Becoming Legitimate, Actual Data
There's a CBS news poll going around, the most cited part of which is that 57% of Americans don't think the political tone contributed to Mr. Loughner's bout of terribleness. But the part that interests me is a different part. 16% of Americans say that violence against the government can be justified, while 76% say it never is. But, uh, those numbers among Democrats and Independents, identically, are 11%/81%. And among Republicans, well, only 64% say violence against the government is Right Out, and 28% say it is sometimes appropriate. I'd be interested in seeing the same question broken down by things like ideology or Tea Party-ism, but in any event, the front-line conclusion is obvious: violence against the government is much more mainstream among Republicans right now than non-Republicans. There are more Republicans who think that violence against the government is sometimes justified than think gun control laws should be made more strict. Or less strict, for that matter. Or thought, in one recent poll, that gay people should be allowed to get married. Or who opposed, in 2006, raising the minimum wage. This is not an utterly fringe position among Republicans right now. It is a minority position, yes; it is still solidly a minority position. But it's also a position that doesn't really care if it's in the minority or not, because it doesn't take a majority vote of the Republican caucus in order for some group of malcontents to start shooting. This is the problem. Not incivility. This, the simple fact that a disturbing number of Republicans think it is acceptable to use violence against the government, is the problem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Robert, I disagree on a number of counts here.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, our nation was founded largely upon the precept, as delineated in the first sentences of the Declaration of Independence, that violence against the government can be justified. It is VERY RARELY so, and obviously not at all in the horrible deed that Loughner is being held trial for. But it certainly can be, if the populace holds an indisputable claim to outright tyranny by the government.
Second, I don't think the higher numbers for Republicans are entirely or even largely a result of a more violent attitude or ideology. Simply, the Democrats are in power, so the Republicans are more likely to see violence as a viable option. No matter how clearheaded and unbiased one's approach to this topic, a slight disequilibrium is natural there. Adding to that is the particular fear for the safety of our president that the nation has felt since his election, which is obviously felt more strongly by Democrats. Furthermore, Democrats are more likely to feel effected by political violence in the wake of the horrible events in Arizona.
All in all, I think these numbers are primarily driven by context and not ideology. If the same poll were taken in 2005 (I wonder if it was...), I imagine the results would be close to reversed.
That said, I acknowledge that there is a dangerously violent tone to the Tea Party's rhetoric, one that is wholly inappropriate, considering we live in a largely free and fair democracy. I think it is the worst effect of Sarah Palin, and I disagree with the 57% of Americans who don't believe in contributed to the shooting. All in all, though, I'm with the 11% of Democrats who believe violence against the government can sometimes be justified, and I'm not willing to read too much into this poll.
I agree that the poll is poorly worded. I think it should have asked, "Do you think violence against the United States government might be justified in the near future?" The current phraseology doesn't distinguish between the "when in the course of human events" idea and the idea that now is an appropriate time for a revolution. If we had a poll from circa '05 saying violence against the U.S. government was popular among liberals (relatively speaking), then I might buy the "circumstance, not ideology" thing, but one side picked the name "tea party" to describe their opposition to the President, and one side didn't. The tea party was kind of the first step in a massive, violent rebellion.
ReplyDelete