The 2024 election is over, with no substantial violence. Given the political divides in the United States, and an information environment primed to inflame them, we can breathe a sigh of relief and congratulate ourselves for completing the election safely. As my earlier post noted, on the whole Americans really don't want to engage in mass political violence.
However, that does not mean the risks of political violence and unrest are off the table. Since the election, bomb threats and swatting attempts have targeted members of Congress and recent presidential appointees. This takes place as credible threats against members of Congress are increasing dramatically, growing from around 900 in 2016 to over 8,000 in 2023.
A likely key driver: fears of what the other political side will have America become. While the specifics differ, too many on both sides of the political divide agreed that the opposing party would usher in an authoritarian regime. One poll found that over two-thirds of respondents, regardless of party, felt that the other party's agenda “poses a threat that if not stopped will destroy America as we know it.”
While the specifics differ, too many on both sides of the political divide agreed that the opposing party would usher in an authoritarian regime.
This is a potential recipe for unrest and targeted violence, such as the plots to assassinate then-candidate Trump. On a civic level, it raises the risk of runaway, escalating political conflicts. And that's not counting the psychic burden on Americans. As one recent poll found, three-quarters of Americans are scared about “the way things are going in the world today”.
Simply telling the public they are wrong about the prospects of political catastrophe is unlikely to help. In my earlier post on the risks of civil war and mass violence, I mentioned the study by Populace (PDF) showing that, when given privacy on their true opinion, only 4 percent supported the prospect of political violence. In the same survey, when given privacy, only 7 percent of Americans said they believe they live in a mostly fair society. Only 7 percent have trust in media and only 4 percent have trust in the government to “tell the truth.”
So, what are some other options? First, deal with the acute threat in the near term then start the slow process of rebuilding trust and reducing the public's fears.
To reduce the risk, an essential first step is a moratorium on threats. On election day and into the evening, I was on call to respond to a media outlet in the event of significant violence and thus spent the days refreshing media feeds for bad news. I gave an interview about the possibilities for violence on election eve, and I noted that when a threat is made, it does not just threaten the target—it puts the threatener and their colleagues at risk from retaliatory threats, themselves. Further, such threats drive public fears.
This also means avoiding “joke” threats. The Transportation Safety Administration asks the public to refrain from making bomb and other threat jokes for a reason—they must take them seriously.
This further means a moratorium on serious accusations of Nazism, fascism, Stalinism, creating dictatorships, violent extremism, and so on except for those very few to whom these terms apply. Such accusations raise the risk, even if small and inadvertent, of so-called stochastic terrorism (PDF). This means those who hear the accusations can come to believe that they have no choice but to attack those accused, even without direct incitement to do so.
Finally, genuinely threatening activity must be addressed. In addition to reporting credible threats of violence to authorities, there are ways to effectively counter (PDF) extremists' “free speech” with more speech.
Longer term, making public assurances about people's safety would start reducing public fears and rebuilding trust. There are many Americans who fear for the future of U.S. democracy and civil rights. Assurances to the contrary need to be made, publicly, loudly, and repeatedly. There is evidence doing so can reduce fears and resulting threats.
There is evidence that the public's suspicions increase when they feel governmental decisions are being made in an opaque way without public input.
More broadly, there is evidence that the public's suspicions increase when they feel governmental decisions are being made in an opaque way without public input. It would be very helpful for government and media to do a better job providing transparency on how major decisions are being made, as well as providing public stakeholders with a meaningful voice in advising those decisions while supporting civic discourse.
Yes, this is much easier said than done, and there are entire communities of practice on these topics. There is evidence that providing transparency and voice in decisions, along with proof that voices are being heard, can help reduce fears and build trust.
This year's elections were completed peacefully, a good first step toward preventing political violence and mass unrest. However, there is a long way to go. The path starts with cooling off threats and unfounded accusations and providing assurances on honoring the rights of Americans.
