Former chief justice: Is the United States headed toward a two-state solution? | Opinion
John Broderick
Sun, June 19, 2022
Unorthodox times may require unprecedented actions. I fear that time may have arrived in America, as painful as it is to acknowledge.
Watching our democracy and its cherished values free-fall dramatically into disrepair, distrust, and dysfunction during President Donald Trump’s time in office, culminating in an insurrection on the U.S. Capitol that he helped organize and encourage, it would be foolish to see those dark days as somehow behind us.
Sadly, tens of millions of our fellow citizens embraced those cringe-worthy days as “making America great again.” Bridging that divisive chasm as “one nation under God” may no longer be possible or even advisable.
President Joe Biden is out of central casting for normal, thoughtful, and experienced leadership that allows him to intelligently tackle and discuss the vexing challenges we face at home and abroad after four years of chaos and confusion created by the norm-breaking and law-breaking Trump administration. But truth, competence and inclusion have apparently fallen out of favor these days.
John Broderick
Sun, June 19, 2022
Unorthodox times may require unprecedented actions. I fear that time may have arrived in America, as painful as it is to acknowledge.
Watching our democracy and its cherished values free-fall dramatically into disrepair, distrust, and dysfunction during President Donald Trump’s time in office, culminating in an insurrection on the U.S. Capitol that he helped organize and encourage, it would be foolish to see those dark days as somehow behind us.
Sadly, tens of millions of our fellow citizens embraced those cringe-worthy days as “making America great again.” Bridging that divisive chasm as “one nation under God” may no longer be possible or even advisable.
President Joe Biden is out of central casting for normal, thoughtful, and experienced leadership that allows him to intelligently tackle and discuss the vexing challenges we face at home and abroad after four years of chaos and confusion created by the norm-breaking and law-breaking Trump administration. But truth, competence and inclusion have apparently fallen out of favor these days.
White nationalist demonstrators clash with a counter demonstrator as he throws a newspaper box at the entrance to Lee Park in Charlottesville, Va., Saturday, Aug. 12, 2017. Gov. Terry McAuliffe declared a state of emergency and police dressed in riot gear ordered people to disperse after chaotic violent clashes between white nationalists and counter protestors.
(AP Photo/Steve Helber) (AP Photo/Steve Helber)
Former President Trump, in all his bombast and disinformation, remains the odds-on favorite to get the Republican nomination in 2024. Apparently under current Republican standards, Trump, despite his four years of careening, reactive, fear-filled, anti-government government is seen by many as the logical answer to our nation’s growing challenges.
Indeed, he is seen by many as the only answer. The BIG LIE and the many kooky conspiracy theories it spawned are still very much alive and thriving. It was once said that “truth will set you free.” Republicans, with few exceptions, have now unsubscribed to that maxim.
Truth, it seems, is now the first victim in the face of inconvenient facts. What in the world has become of our country and those who purport to lead it? Is this really who we have become?
America in all its greatness cannot survive the centrifugal forces of self-destruction loosed and growing across our land. We have become incapable it appears to address pressing national problems like climate change, voter suppression, assault rifles on our streets, kids being gunned down in our schools, the dangerous rise of white nationalism and antisemitism, and the self-confident smugness of growing ignorance across a host of national issues.
American values and common ties that once proudly cemented our diverse nation are constantly being undercut by those who would turn back the clock on American progress and continue to create false-flag culture wars that turn Americans against each other.
Former President Trump, in all his bombast and disinformation, remains the odds-on favorite to get the Republican nomination in 2024. Apparently under current Republican standards, Trump, despite his four years of careening, reactive, fear-filled, anti-government government is seen by many as the logical answer to our nation’s growing challenges.
Indeed, he is seen by many as the only answer. The BIG LIE and the many kooky conspiracy theories it spawned are still very much alive and thriving. It was once said that “truth will set you free.” Republicans, with few exceptions, have now unsubscribed to that maxim.
Truth, it seems, is now the first victim in the face of inconvenient facts. What in the world has become of our country and those who purport to lead it? Is this really who we have become?
America in all its greatness cannot survive the centrifugal forces of self-destruction loosed and growing across our land. We have become incapable it appears to address pressing national problems like climate change, voter suppression, assault rifles on our streets, kids being gunned down in our schools, the dangerous rise of white nationalism and antisemitism, and the self-confident smugness of growing ignorance across a host of national issues.
American values and common ties that once proudly cemented our diverse nation are constantly being undercut by those who would turn back the clock on American progress and continue to create false-flag culture wars that turn Americans against each other.
John Broderick
Increasingly I don’t recognize my country and its growing tolerance of intolerance and its fear of the truth. What disturbs me most is my nagging belief that we have already become “two nations under God” and that without a shot being fired we might need to make that a physical reality: one nation blue and the other red.
One of those new countries (like the one I grew up in) would constantly, albeit imperfectly, strive to address the real needs of its people, understand, harness and promote its diversity and cherish its democratic values while ever-trying to become “a more perfect union” and the other could salute aggregated power, stifle dissent, declare martial law to quell protesters, build walls at its borders, rewrite history to suit its needs, disregard realities, overturn election results on false claims of voter fraud, disenfranchise women, cut taxes for the rich, arm all its citizens and ignore the global leadership responsibilities of a great nation.
Something needs to change and soon or a two-state solution for America may be exactly where we’re headed. Even more unsettling is that a two-state solution may be the only answer to America’s woes. I pray I’m wrong.
John T. Broderick Jr., former chief justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, is the founder of the Warren B. Rudman Center for Justice, Leadership and Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law.
This article originally appeared on Treasure Coast Newspapers: Former chief justice: Are we ready for two-state solution? | Opinion
Here’s What the Insecure Insurrectionists Don’t Get About America
Evan Thies
Mon, June 20, 2022
Shannon Stapleton/Reuters
Watching the Jan. 6 committee’s new footage once again showing the violent glee of America’s would-be coup-makers more than a year later, I flashed back to a thought I had on the day of the insurrection attempt, when we first saw the barbarians wearing and waving American flags breaching the gates and attempting to depose the American government.
The traitors hate other Americans. That is how they justify their violence. A series of lies pushed at them or internalized over their life experiences had separated them from the reality that this nation is governed by stewards selected by their countrymen, and the reality that American democracy isn’t endangered by our representatives but rather depends on them to maintain it.
My question for these rioters who cosplayed as a militia: Why do you care so much about how other Americans choose to live?
Why do you care if some men wear women’s clothes? If another state—not even your own—wants to prevent people from walking around with guns? If Black people want to protest?
Don’t you have better things to do? Isn’t there a game on? All this unnecessary anger seems exhausting.
July 4 will be the 127th anniversary of the poem America the Beautiful, often referred to as our national hymn. Most Americans could sing you the first stanza about amber waves of grain and purple mountains majesty. But most Americans—and most insurrectionists—could not recite the end of the third stanza: “Till selfish gain no longer stain, the banner of the free.”
America was not actually built on unlimited individual freedom, as a shocking number of Americans seem to believe it is these days. The foundation of our nation, the bedrock of its multi-century success, is the philosophy of democratic liberalism: the government will not interfere with your pursuit of happiness unless your pursuit interferes with that of other people.
Yet American freedom has been diluted, corrupted and repackaged into hyper-individualism—substituting a social poison for the antidote to strife. The salesmen peddling this snake oil are selling the opposite of what our founders wanted. They are selling the idea that your own freedom is more important than that of your neighbors.
The insecure insurrectionists swilling that toxic “medicine” tried on Jan. 6, and are still trying now, to force it down the throat of the vast majority of Americans. They are willing to undo our nation to enforce their minority rule. They are tearing at civility and comity like a toddler ripping off its shirt in a crying fit, unaware or uninterested in their own unhappiness that others also have a right to happiness.
Instead of sharing the bountiful “fruited plains” of America the Beautiful, they want to inflict the all-against-all landscape Daniel Plainview memorably described in There Will Be Blood: “I have a competition in me. I want no one else to succeed. I hate most people. I want to earn enough money that I can get away from everyone. I see the worst in people. I don’t need to look past seeing them to get all I need. I’ve built my hatreds up over the years, little by little…”
The law this mad minority wants to impose would not only make Americans less safe but in doing so also infringe on our right to happiness. For instance, a national right to carry a firearm will obviously endanger the rights of millions of Americans. The lack of an assault weapons ban already does—and not just because it’s led to the murder of innocents. The fact that children now fear being shot to death in school is a direct infringement on their right to happiness, and that of their parents. One cannot be scared and happy simultaneously.
At the same time, the insurrectionists are not just trying to change the rules of our country, but also its referees. Years of methodical work to install ideological justices has put the Supreme Court on the precipice of reversing laws on abortion and guns that act as sentinels of the liberalism our founders built. And they are empowering local officials to suppress voting rights, shifting us from Constitutional democracy to autocracy of the mob.
That is the true coup. Americans will always have disagreements, even moral impasses—that is why we have duly elected and appointed officials to act as intermediaries to step in and tell us when my rights run into yours. When we remove the refs, it’s game over.
As a New Yorker, who is surrounded by and inundated by all kinds of people and cultures all of the time, I just do not understand how America got here. I go to a Polish church named after an Italian saint with an Indian priest that celebrates masses in Spanish. It’s great.
The insurrectionists should take a lesson from New York City: judge everyone, disrespect no one. Save your energy for things that matter, like getting up early for the good fresh rolls or complaining about the trash pick-up.
Have a beer. Watch the game. Grumble to your spouse. And leave our laws, our country and our civilization alone. Enjoy July 4 and your freedom to be an intolerant idiot. Sing America the Beautiful. It was written by Katharine Lee Bates, a feminist from Massachusetts.
Evan Thies
Mon, June 20, 2022
Shannon Stapleton/Reuters
Watching the Jan. 6 committee’s new footage once again showing the violent glee of America’s would-be coup-makers more than a year later, I flashed back to a thought I had on the day of the insurrection attempt, when we first saw the barbarians wearing and waving American flags breaching the gates and attempting to depose the American government.
The traitors hate other Americans. That is how they justify their violence. A series of lies pushed at them or internalized over their life experiences had separated them from the reality that this nation is governed by stewards selected by their countrymen, and the reality that American democracy isn’t endangered by our representatives but rather depends on them to maintain it.
My question for these rioters who cosplayed as a militia: Why do you care so much about how other Americans choose to live?
Why do you care if some men wear women’s clothes? If another state—not even your own—wants to prevent people from walking around with guns? If Black people want to protest?
Don’t you have better things to do? Isn’t there a game on? All this unnecessary anger seems exhausting.
July 4 will be the 127th anniversary of the poem America the Beautiful, often referred to as our national hymn. Most Americans could sing you the first stanza about amber waves of grain and purple mountains majesty. But most Americans—and most insurrectionists—could not recite the end of the third stanza: “Till selfish gain no longer stain, the banner of the free.”
America was not actually built on unlimited individual freedom, as a shocking number of Americans seem to believe it is these days. The foundation of our nation, the bedrock of its multi-century success, is the philosophy of democratic liberalism: the government will not interfere with your pursuit of happiness unless your pursuit interferes with that of other people.
Yet American freedom has been diluted, corrupted and repackaged into hyper-individualism—substituting a social poison for the antidote to strife. The salesmen peddling this snake oil are selling the opposite of what our founders wanted. They are selling the idea that your own freedom is more important than that of your neighbors.
The insecure insurrectionists swilling that toxic “medicine” tried on Jan. 6, and are still trying now, to force it down the throat of the vast majority of Americans. They are willing to undo our nation to enforce their minority rule. They are tearing at civility and comity like a toddler ripping off its shirt in a crying fit, unaware or uninterested in their own unhappiness that others also have a right to happiness.
Instead of sharing the bountiful “fruited plains” of America the Beautiful, they want to inflict the all-against-all landscape Daniel Plainview memorably described in There Will Be Blood: “I have a competition in me. I want no one else to succeed. I hate most people. I want to earn enough money that I can get away from everyone. I see the worst in people. I don’t need to look past seeing them to get all I need. I’ve built my hatreds up over the years, little by little…”
The law this mad minority wants to impose would not only make Americans less safe but in doing so also infringe on our right to happiness. For instance, a national right to carry a firearm will obviously endanger the rights of millions of Americans. The lack of an assault weapons ban already does—and not just because it’s led to the murder of innocents. The fact that children now fear being shot to death in school is a direct infringement on their right to happiness, and that of their parents. One cannot be scared and happy simultaneously.
At the same time, the insurrectionists are not just trying to change the rules of our country, but also its referees. Years of methodical work to install ideological justices has put the Supreme Court on the precipice of reversing laws on abortion and guns that act as sentinels of the liberalism our founders built. And they are empowering local officials to suppress voting rights, shifting us from Constitutional democracy to autocracy of the mob.
That is the true coup. Americans will always have disagreements, even moral impasses—that is why we have duly elected and appointed officials to act as intermediaries to step in and tell us when my rights run into yours. When we remove the refs, it’s game over.
As a New Yorker, who is surrounded by and inundated by all kinds of people and cultures all of the time, I just do not understand how America got here. I go to a Polish church named after an Italian saint with an Indian priest that celebrates masses in Spanish. It’s great.
The insurrectionists should take a lesson from New York City: judge everyone, disrespect no one. Save your energy for things that matter, like getting up early for the good fresh rolls or complaining about the trash pick-up.
Have a beer. Watch the game. Grumble to your spouse. And leave our laws, our country and our civilization alone. Enjoy July 4 and your freedom to be an intolerant idiot. Sing America the Beautiful. It was written by Katharine Lee Bates, a feminist from Massachusetts.
Civil war in the US is unlikely because grievance doesn't necessarily translate directly into violence
Ore Koren, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Indiana University
When trying to assess the likelihood of civil war, researchers first look at whether people are willing to engage in violence. Willingness is often attributed to anger and grievances over inequality or political marginalization.
Individuals or groups may have grievances with specific state or national policies, or with other groups. As their anger grows, these people may not only use aggressive and demeaning language, but also become more accepting of the idea of using violence.
Anger and grievances are probably the most frequently highlighted issues in the mainstream media, and especially in social media outlets. Studies of social media outlets have found that their algorithms are designed to amplify anger to appeal to wider groups.
Aggrieved people, however, exist almost everywhere, even in the world’s happiest countries. Feeling aggrieved and even using harsh and violent rhetoric does not mean a person is willing to take up arms against the government or one’s fellow citizens.
Risks to joining a rebellion
But even if they are fully willing, in almost every case, civil war will not happen unless these very angry people have the opportunity to organize and use violence on a large scale.
Joining a rebellion is extremely risky. You can die or be severely wounded. Your chances of winning are low. If you don’t win, even if you survive unscathed, you still risk prosecution and social alienation. You may lose your job, your savings and even your home and put your family at risk.
It doesn’t matter how angry you are, these considerations are usually prohibitive.
All these calculations are part of what economists call “opportunity costs.” Opportunity costs basically measure how much you would have to potentially give up if you were to engage in a given activity, such as rebellion.
In most countries afflicted by civil war, poverty, economic downturn and even food insecurity mean that these costs are relatively low. An unemployed farm laborer in rural Mozambique has, from an economic perspective at least, less to lose from joining an extremist insurgency than, say, Robert Scott Palmer, owner of a cleaning and restoration company from Largo, Florida.
Apparently willing to risk his livelihood by using violence against police during the Jan. 6 riot, Palmer was thwarted by other factors that are highly relevant in determining the potential for a full-fledged rebellion – the government’s capacity to punish and deter violence, and the opportunity, or lack of opportunity, for dissidents to organize and mobilize effectively enough to start a war.
For example, people who want to organize and rebel against the government will find it easier to do in remote areas where the government cannot know or reach them. Tora Bora – the cave complex in the mountain of eastern Afghanistan – is an example of such a place. Insurgents can hide and train there, practically unknown to, and untouchable by, Afghanistan’s military, which generally lacks the capabilities and capacity of its American counterpart.
The high levels of American policing and intelligence capacity mean that insurgency opportunities are rare in the U.S. Individuals who organize, arm themselves and decide to act against the government risk being detected and thwarted before they can become real threats.
Moreover, because of the low urban density of the U.S., even if such rebels are successful in organizing – in rural Alaska, for example – they will be unable to reach, let alone conquer, big cities or threaten American sovereignty in significant ways.
‘Intensified domestic terrorism’
These low opportunities suggest that civil war in America is still unlikely. But this does not preclude the occurrence of other forms of less intense violence. Concerns about increased violent extremism in the United States recently led the U.S. Justice Department to establish a new domestic terrorism group.
It is possible we might see a rise in the number of organized domestic terror attacks – along the lines of the British experience during its conflict with the Provisional Irish Republican Army or the U.S. experience with the Weather Underground during the 1960s and 1970s.
More likely is an increase in so-called “lone wolf” attacks, such as the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church Shooting, the 2016 Orlando nightclub shootings or the 2010 Austin suicide attack on a four-story building that housed an IRS field office. These may become more prevalent because of the spread of violent messages on social media and the “gamification” of violence, for instance via competitive point-scoring detected by the FBI among violent individuals.
Because they often involve one individual, “lone wolf” attacks are harder to identify and prevent, which increases the opportunity for individuals to engage in violence. But the costs of doing so remain high.
Start at the top
What can be done to reduce the risk of violence?
A well-functioning and effective government security organization combined with a vibrant economy lowers conflict opportunity. But taking aim at factors that make people willing to engage in violence might be another effective strategy.
This could start from the top.
The risk of radicalization is the highest when government leaders themselves attack government institutions to achieve short-term political goals.
Politicians and activists can disagree, but if they also continue to reaffirm their trust in the American political and legal systems, which are still among the world’s best in terms of ensuring equal political participation, personal freedoms and economic prosperity, that could go a long way toward discouraging willingness to engage in anti-government or other types of political violence.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Ore Koren, Indiana University.
Ore Koren, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Indiana University
THE CONVERSATION
Sun, June 19, 2022
Will the U.S. be torn apart by civil war? Paul Sancya/AP photos
The potential for violent extremism in America to erupt into full-fledged conflict across the country is a common topic of discussion nowadays.
A 2021 FBI report highlights an increasing risk of violence against government institutions, private organizations and individuals. The possible perpetrators: primarily “lone wolves,” but potentially also militias and other organized groups such as animal activists, anti-abortionists and white supremacists.
Claims that America is at the greatest risk of civil war since, well, the Civil War, recently received additional support from some experts in the field of political science.
But civil wars are rare events.
Before the 2020 election, I analyzed the risk of a so-called “Second American Civil War” that some speculated might ignite on or around Election Day. I concluded the risk was very low, while also emphasizing the uncertainty of the times.
Despite the ugly Capitol riot of Jan. 6, 2021, and anti-racism protests of the past few years, some of which included rioting, violent confrontation, and property destruction, my analysis has held, and I remain unconvinced that America is likely to descend into civil war in the near future.
Before proceeding, I want to stress that, as a scholar who studies civil conflict, I discuss the manifestations of violence here not on the basis of their underlying political ideologies but in relation to empirical definitions of different types of political violence.
Grievance doesn’t translate into violence
Researchers usually define civil wars based on a certain threshold of combatant deaths, often 1,000 or more.
In 2020, for example, only eight conflicts crossed that threshold worldwide. They happened in countries – including Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Yemen – experiencing rampant poverty and underdevelopment, nondemocratic or dysfunctional political institutions, and a long history of conflict along ethnic and religious lines.
Sun, June 19, 2022
Will the U.S. be torn apart by civil war? Paul Sancya/AP photos
The potential for violent extremism in America to erupt into full-fledged conflict across the country is a common topic of discussion nowadays.
A 2021 FBI report highlights an increasing risk of violence against government institutions, private organizations and individuals. The possible perpetrators: primarily “lone wolves,” but potentially also militias and other organized groups such as animal activists, anti-abortionists and white supremacists.
Claims that America is at the greatest risk of civil war since, well, the Civil War, recently received additional support from some experts in the field of political science.
But civil wars are rare events.
Before the 2020 election, I analyzed the risk of a so-called “Second American Civil War” that some speculated might ignite on or around Election Day. I concluded the risk was very low, while also emphasizing the uncertainty of the times.
Despite the ugly Capitol riot of Jan. 6, 2021, and anti-racism protests of the past few years, some of which included rioting, violent confrontation, and property destruction, my analysis has held, and I remain unconvinced that America is likely to descend into civil war in the near future.
Before proceeding, I want to stress that, as a scholar who studies civil conflict, I discuss the manifestations of violence here not on the basis of their underlying political ideologies but in relation to empirical definitions of different types of political violence.
Grievance doesn’t translate into violence
Researchers usually define civil wars based on a certain threshold of combatant deaths, often 1,000 or more.
In 2020, for example, only eight conflicts crossed that threshold worldwide. They happened in countries – including Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Yemen – experiencing rampant poverty and underdevelopment, nondemocratic or dysfunctional political institutions, and a long history of conflict along ethnic and religious lines.
When trying to assess the likelihood of civil war, researchers first look at whether people are willing to engage in violence. Willingness is often attributed to anger and grievances over inequality or political marginalization.
Individuals or groups may have grievances with specific state or national policies, or with other groups. As their anger grows, these people may not only use aggressive and demeaning language, but also become more accepting of the idea of using violence.
Anger and grievances are probably the most frequently highlighted issues in the mainstream media, and especially in social media outlets. Studies of social media outlets have found that their algorithms are designed to amplify anger to appeal to wider groups.
Aggrieved people, however, exist almost everywhere, even in the world’s happiest countries. Feeling aggrieved and even using harsh and violent rhetoric does not mean a person is willing to take up arms against the government or one’s fellow citizens.
Risks to joining a rebellion
But even if they are fully willing, in almost every case, civil war will not happen unless these very angry people have the opportunity to organize and use violence on a large scale.
Joining a rebellion is extremely risky. You can die or be severely wounded. Your chances of winning are low. If you don’t win, even if you survive unscathed, you still risk prosecution and social alienation. You may lose your job, your savings and even your home and put your family at risk.
It doesn’t matter how angry you are, these considerations are usually prohibitive.
All these calculations are part of what economists call “opportunity costs.” Opportunity costs basically measure how much you would have to potentially give up if you were to engage in a given activity, such as rebellion.
In most countries afflicted by civil war, poverty, economic downturn and even food insecurity mean that these costs are relatively low. An unemployed farm laborer in rural Mozambique has, from an economic perspective at least, less to lose from joining an extremist insurgency than, say, Robert Scott Palmer, owner of a cleaning and restoration company from Largo, Florida.
Apparently willing to risk his livelihood by using violence against police during the Jan. 6 riot, Palmer was thwarted by other factors that are highly relevant in determining the potential for a full-fledged rebellion – the government’s capacity to punish and deter violence, and the opportunity, or lack of opportunity, for dissidents to organize and mobilize effectively enough to start a war.
For example, people who want to organize and rebel against the government will find it easier to do in remote areas where the government cannot know or reach them. Tora Bora – the cave complex in the mountain of eastern Afghanistan – is an example of such a place. Insurgents can hide and train there, practically unknown to, and untouchable by, Afghanistan’s military, which generally lacks the capabilities and capacity of its American counterpart.
The high levels of American policing and intelligence capacity mean that insurgency opportunities are rare in the U.S. Individuals who organize, arm themselves and decide to act against the government risk being detected and thwarted before they can become real threats.
Moreover, because of the low urban density of the U.S., even if such rebels are successful in organizing – in rural Alaska, for example – they will be unable to reach, let alone conquer, big cities or threaten American sovereignty in significant ways.
‘Intensified domestic terrorism’
These low opportunities suggest that civil war in America is still unlikely. But this does not preclude the occurrence of other forms of less intense violence. Concerns about increased violent extremism in the United States recently led the U.S. Justice Department to establish a new domestic terrorism group.
It is possible we might see a rise in the number of organized domestic terror attacks – along the lines of the British experience during its conflict with the Provisional Irish Republican Army or the U.S. experience with the Weather Underground during the 1960s and 1970s.
More likely is an increase in so-called “lone wolf” attacks, such as the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church Shooting, the 2016 Orlando nightclub shootings or the 2010 Austin suicide attack on a four-story building that housed an IRS field office. These may become more prevalent because of the spread of violent messages on social media and the “gamification” of violence, for instance via competitive point-scoring detected by the FBI among violent individuals.
Because they often involve one individual, “lone wolf” attacks are harder to identify and prevent, which increases the opportunity for individuals to engage in violence. But the costs of doing so remain high.
Start at the top
What can be done to reduce the risk of violence?
A well-functioning and effective government security organization combined with a vibrant economy lowers conflict opportunity. But taking aim at factors that make people willing to engage in violence might be another effective strategy.
This could start from the top.
The risk of radicalization is the highest when government leaders themselves attack government institutions to achieve short-term political goals.
Politicians and activists can disagree, but if they also continue to reaffirm their trust in the American political and legal systems, which are still among the world’s best in terms of ensuring equal political participation, personal freedoms and economic prosperity, that could go a long way toward discouraging willingness to engage in anti-government or other types of political violence.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Ore Koren, Indiana University.
No comments:
Post a Comment