Maybe not yet, but if Republicans succeed in some of the further steps they’re talking about taking, in regard to a whole mess of issues including abortion and voting rights, I could see it causing urban vs. rural resentment the other way in red states.
A poster on a conservative board I drop into once in a while explained conservatives’ reluctance to compromise thusly (paraphrasing): Democrats are always proposing changes which move the nation leftward. Therefore, any compromise still moves the country left.
When Republicans propose legislation that removes progressive policies back to a previous position, Dems won’t budge an inch. So the lack of bipartisan legislation is totally the Libs’ fault.
So the solution appears to be never move forward.
From the article in the OP:
Currently one-third of Republicans support violence as a means to save the country, compared with 22% of independents and 13% of Democrats, the survey found. More specifically, Republicans who have favorable views of Donald Trump were found to be “nearly three times as likely as Republicans who have unfavorable views of Trump” to support political violence.
IMHO the threat of violence for the next election will be about the same as it was in 2020. Sure, a few of the wackiest wack-a-doodles will go ahead with the hijinx and get themselves killed or arrested, but the majority of the people advocating for violence are really advocating for someone else to bring the violence, from the comfort of their own couch and keyboard. All hat, no cattle. All sizzle, no steak.
Their zenith was Jan 6 - I don’t think something like that can happen again, not without heavy organization and total secrecy, and with Trump out of the halls of government, he has no power. Local law enforcement and the military can keep things in check. I don’t think these hayseeds are smart enough to carry out any sort of widespread violence that would change the course or outcome of the election - they just don’t have the number or the smarts.
Fascists love other fascists. Or authoritarians. They claim they are the party of personal responsibility, but have their policies ever shown that? Nope. They absolutely want to tell everyone what they can and cannot do.
“patriots may need to resort to violence to save the country” seems to me consistent with what the Union did after the Confederacy attacked Fort Sumter. Did the North in the Civil War act as part of a Lunatic Fringe? Or am I missing an essential difference?
I’m not advocating violence. In fact, if all the Red States decided to go create their own country, I’d be fine with it (considering that I live in a Blue State). I’m just questioning whether it’s so weird, really, that political interests would lead to violence. Seems to me war is, sadly, all too mainstream.
Perhaps the thrust here is that 24%, or some other significant fraction, believe we are already there, for example because they think the 2020 election was stolen?
If you add to your final line “despite all evidence, court cases, and REPUBLICAN INVESTIGATION into the matter.”
Then yes.
ETA - to be more clear, if a certain group embraces violence as a solution to a situation that in all observable fact a verifiably false premise, then what else do you call it but lunacy?
Yes, you are missing a lot of differences.
What about the MAGA members of the military and police? Will you trust them to watch their own?
Well, so, but the PRRI site says the question asked was whether people agree “because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country”. I think law enforcement trying to contain the Jan 6 insurrection would be such a resort, so, I think we may have to resort to violence to save the country, like that example.
There’s a great deal of lunacy on the right. Certainly. I just think the polling question, itself, as asked, may turn up more than lunacy.
I’m not so sure this is a huge change. The right has long used violence to acheive its goals. It’s just in the past, said violence was used against minorities directly with the acquiescence, if not out and out support, of those in power. The only real difference is now the law, and a majority of people, don’t let them get away with it. Whether it was lynchings, abortion clinic bombings, the murder of homosexuals, or police brutality, the violence has always been there for the right. Its just now there are more people and institutions to stand in opposition to them. And that REALLY terrifies them, which makes them angry. And even more violent.
It’s worth noting that there are foreign elements who could be putting money into promoting disunion. Likewise, there are people who do it locally just because it sells.
And I’d note that any posts in the topic that likewise promote disunion and hatred are only aiding in that effort.
I’m not generally a fan of Jesus but responding to someone who spit on you with a hug is, probably, the right path to follow if you want all of this to end in a healthy and peaceful way.
Let them be bad. You be good and ask the same of others.
Yes! The bigots have always been using violence to enforce their will on the rest of us. Sometimes it’s overt, sometimes it’s covert, sometimes it’s merely implicit. Our advantage now is that modern communications makes it much harder for them to hide their evil. The more extreme their actions, the quicker they’ll lose.
It’s not going to be easy for us. Think of the sacrifices we made during the Civil War and then the Civil Rights Movement. The irony of the bigots stopping people from learning about the history is that they themselves have already forgotten how they lost.
I think they are in the minority in most police departments and military units. I acknowledge they are present, but not in numbers large enough to carry out some sort of plan, if they have one in the first place. Other than the most MAGAt-infested police department in the most MAGAt-y town, which is likely far from any target of substance, I trust them as a whole to adhere to the law and their oaths, regarding politics (as opposed to other social issues - but that’s a different discussion).
What I’m imagining these days is, upon the Hitler reveal, a substantial part of the crowd cheering and yelling “Yeah, that’s who I’m talking about!”
Since it’s pretty clear (see our flag flying threads, or any of a number of other such) that Patriotism is currently code for Republican, no, I don’t think it generally applies.
And no, I don’t think LEO engaged in preventing a violent break-in of our highest government offices is in anyway qualifies. Anymore than local police are “patriotic” for preventing a bank robbery. They’re duly appointed individuals doing a badly needed job, but that’s all.
I’ll repeat @snowthx’s quote of the article from the OP -
I tend to dismiss “independents” since at least for the last decade or so, they seem pretty much to be so heavily inclined to one side or other as to be indistinguishable from a supporter (and note in the example above they’re almost perfectly in the middle of the two camps) so we’re looking at approximately 33% of Republicans to 13% of Democrats, with the 3x multiplier if you’re a MAGA follower.
So I’m pretty damn sure my example is fully accurate, not to mention that I also acknowledged that there are certainly otherwise more Progressive groups that see violence as possibly needed:
One contributing factor to the “violence is needed” crowd, IMHO, is that America has a long history of being violent for a good cause.
We celebrate the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WW2 as good wars. And then we do “regime change” wars in Iraq, etc.
So it shouldn’t be surprising that 23% of people get the idea in their heads that violence is entirely appropriate in some situations and that battling a regime/tyranny (in their viewpoint) is the right thing to do.
See also my upthread discussion on how we frame many issues (and increasingly social and political issues) as “War on ________.”
Sometimes I frikkin’ despair at it all.
Well, I mean, we sing about war and battles and bombs and bravery at every sporting event. It’s not too much a leap to think some of our ranks are taking that seriously - they want the glamour of honor, too.
I’m declaring a “War on Despair”.