ReportWire

Tag: political activists

  • Where Political Violence Comes From

    [ad_1]

    This past week, the right-wing political activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated at Utah Valley University. Kirk, a close ally of President Donald Trump’s, was thirty-one years old. Tyler Robinson, a twenty-two-year-old Utah resident, has been accused of the murder. It is the latest in a string of attacks on American political figures: the shooting of two Minnesota state lawmakers and their spouses in June, two attempts on the life of President Trump during last year’s Presidential campaign, and the January 6, 2021, storming of the Capitol, to name a few.

    I recently spoke by phone with Lilliana Mason, a professor of political science at the Johns Hopkins S.N.F. Agora Institute and an expert on political violence. In 2022, she co-wrote, with Nathan P. Kalmoe, the book “Radical American Partisanship: Mapping Violent Hostility, Its Causes, and the Consequences for Democracy.” During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed what makes our current era potentially more dangerous than the late nineteen-sixties, the connection between partisanship and political violence, and how to tone down partisanship when your political opponents really are extremists.

    When it comes to political violence, what feels different to you about our current era?

    We have been collecting data on people’s attitudes about political violence in the United States since 2017. But there is some older data that we have from newspapers, and from the Pew Research Center, which actually shows relatively similar levels of approval for political violence to what we see in the Trump era. So I don’t think that there’s a punctuated point at which the era of political violence begins. We can say that there certainly was significant political violence in the nineteen-sixties. But the difference then was that it was not organized along partisan lines. And what we’re seeing today is organized along partisan lines.

    What do you mean by “organized along partisan lines”?

    I mean that it is coming out of an animosity between the Democrats and the Republicans. In the sixties, there was a lot of violence, but it wasn’t like the Democrats and Republicans were on two sides of that violence. It didn’t line up perfectly with politics, or at least not in terms of partisan politics. Back then, it could be kind of random. But when the parties are helping organize the animosity, the violence itself can become more institutionalized.

    That’s interesting, but, in the current era, when we read about the people who commit political violence, they often don’t sound like typical partisans. They have weird and strange views, and sometimes crazy views. How do you synthesize that with what you just said?

    So one way to think about it is that there is a kind of political violence in which a political figure is targeted to achieve political goals. I think that everyone would agree that that is political violence. A lot of what we’ve been seeing recently, even just over the last year, has been violence targeting a political figure for nonpolitical ends or for maybe dubiously political ends. And in fact, these attacks are almost more like school shooters, where it’s a disturbed young person who’s trying to get attention and wants to go down in history. It’s violence against a political figure, but it’s not entirely because they want to achieve a political goal. Are you attacking the person because they’re political, or are you attacking the person because they’re famous? And I think it’s really easy to confuse those two things. But I think that the goal of the attacker does matter.

    Do people in your field think that the partisan, toxic atmosphere in the country could be motivating these attacks, even if the shooters themselves aren’t clear partisans attacking someone from the opposing party?

    A lot of political violence is done by people who are going to be violent anyway. Some people are just sort of like a loaded weapon, and the question is, where will they aim? And that’s where political leadership has power. Political leadership can tell these extremely volatile people what an appropriate target is. And so they might have exploded in one direction if they weren’t paying attention to politics or if they didn’t have leaders telling them who to hate. But because of the political environment, they turn in that direction. So I think in a sense it’s not necessarily telling them to go be violent; it’s that these are usually unstable people already and it is about where their attention is being drawn.

    I want to go back to 1968. The lack of the same level of partisanship, and the lack of leading Democrats and Republicans advocating violence in the same way they are now—even when those politicians were doing other terrible things, like pursuing the Vietnam War, that unsettled the atmosphere—makes me think that democracy was less threatened then. Is that your view?

    Empirically, it is different, right? It is different because the type of violence that we’re seeing right now, or at the very least, the type of animosity that is motivating violence, is very much about who is a Democrat and who’s a Republican. I think that’s more dangerous than an era of chaotic political violence, because our parties structure everything. When we go into the voting booth, we think we’re voting for a political agenda, but we’re also voting for these questions many of us consider existential. Having violence embedded into that, there’s a potential for violence becoming embedded in our politics itself.

    [ad_2]

    Isaac Chotiner

    Source link

  • A Campus Mourns Charlie Kirk

    [ad_1]

    Reagan Hurly, the president of Texas A. & M.’s political-science club, was at his apartment in College Station, Texas, when he heard that Charlie Kirk had been killed while speaking on a college campus in Utah. Hurly went “deep in prayer,” he told me, and began organizing a vigil. He enlisted the help of his best friend, the head of Texas A. & M.’s chapter of Turning Point USA, Kirk’s conservative nonprofit. Then he began to invite other students. Pols Aggies, as Hurly’s club is known, is nonpartisan, and he had already decided that his mission for the semester was “to depolarize.” He reached out to every political group he knew of on campus, most of which were conservative, and he also asked a member of his own club—who had debated Kirk when he visited the campus this past April—to be on the program. He invited the Aggie Democrats to come and speak, too. They seemed “pretty nervous,” he said, because of “how unstable and divisive it’s been recently.” But, ultimately, they said yes.

    The next day, a group of volunteers spent hours collecting thousands of battery-operated candles from churches and stores in the area. They had no idea how many people were going to show up at the event. Texas A. & M. is one of the biggest universities in the country, with more than seventy thousand students, and it regularly appears on lists of the most conservative campuses. Kirk’s visit to the school in the spring had drawn a crowd of twenty-five hundred, filling an auditorium to capacity.

    Kirk’s murder prompted a tremendous outpouring of grief, fear, and anger. On social media, people shared instructions for how to turn off auto-play in order to avoid accidentally encountering what amounted to a snuff video. There was no known motive for the killing, and the suspected shooter—later revealed to be twenty-two year-old Tyler Robinson, according to investigators—had not yet been apprehended. That had not stopped some figures on the right from calling for war against their political enemies. The left was, according to Elon Musk, “the party of murder” and, according to the far-right conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer, a “national security threat”; Loomer called for the Trump Administration to “shut down, defund, & prosecute every single Leftist organization.” Hurly and other volunteers reached out to churches in town and across the state, and asked them to pray over the event.

    Hundreds of people showed up to the vigil—young men sweating under their blazers, young women clutching plastic-wrapped bouquets of flowers. It was a breezeless, stifling night. At the edge of the crowd, a man waved a flag with a picture of a pine tree and the phrase “Appeal to Heaven.” The flag, which dates back to the American Revolution, has more recently been associated with Christian nationalists. “It just says, when we can’t find our answers through government, we find our answers through God,” the man waving it told me. The assembled Aggies, students who are typically known for their exuberance, were uncharacteristically hushed. “Tonight is not a night for politics,” Hurly said, when it was his time to speak. “Violence can happen on both sides of the aisle and it is up to us for the future to change it.” He asked for prayers for the teen-agers who had been wounded at a school shooting in Colorado the previous day, and for the Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, who were murdered earlier this year. “People want to see change. From my experience as an individual, change comes with love,” Hurly said. “Our generation has the potential to be a force for good. It is up to us to make that happen.” When a group with a guitar took the stage and began singing worship songs, the two women standing in front of me linked arms and leaned against each other as they began to cry.

    Kirk, who was thirty-one years old, made a name for himself as a kind of MAGA whisperer to young people, many of whom discovered him through social media and campus events where he invited students to debate him. Kirk’s visit to Texas A. & M. had been part of his American Comeback Tour, for which he visited colleges to celebrate Donald Trump’s reëlection and advocate for conservative culture on campuses; videos of the event showed the packed auditorium swaying with revival-meeting enthusiasm. An out-of-state freshman I spoke with told me that she had come across videos of the event at the time she was deciding which college to attend. Kirk, she said, was “a big reason” she ended up choosing Texas A. & M.: “Just, like, the power and light that the students brought for him, and his love for this school.”

    Kirk’s evangelicalism inflected both the tone and content of his message. He was open to talk with anyone, but steadfast in his confidence that his path was the correct one. “If you do not have a religious basis, specifically a Christian one, for your society, something else is going to replace it,” he said at the Texas A. & M. event. He and his followers were locked in a battle with an enemy that was not just ideologically opposed but unwell, possibly evil. Democratic leaders, Kirk said, were “maggots, vermin, and swine”; transgender identity was a “middle finger to God.” Fresh-faced and tall, with seemingly boundless reserves of energy, Kirk approached politics less as an argument over competing policies and more as a meme-driven competitive sport, with the spectacle of owning your enemies deployed as a surefire way to drive engagement. He built an impressive infrastructure both online and offline that got young people to volunteer and their grandmothers to donate. He was, above all else, a superb fund-raiser. For Kirk, politics were inseparable from faith, and his fans sometimes invoked the language of religious conversion to explain his effect on them. A freshman named Elizabeth told me that she had been “on the other side” until Kirk, whom she first encountered via social media, “opened my eyes and opened my ears, not only to politics but to Christ.”

    [ad_2]

    Rachel Monroe

    Source link

  • MAGA Reacts to the Assassination of Charlie Kirk

    [ad_1]

    Late last summer, I spent the early hours of a weekend morning walking through suburban Phoenix with volunteers for Turning Point Action, Charlie Kirk’s political-advocacy organization. Donald Trump had just been in town for a huge rally, during which Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.—a surprise guest—endorsed him. Gold streamers made to look like they were on fire exploded from the stage. Many in the crowd were there to see Kirk, who spoke first. “You know you are part of something bigger than yourself,” he said. “You are part of the most exciting, diverse, powerful movement in the history of this country.” He went on, “This movement is about all of us against them.” The next time I saw Kirk, in January, Trump had won the election, and Kirk was hosting an Inauguration Eve party in the basement of a hotel in Washington. Giddy supporters danced under a disco ball. But, even at the height of the exuberance, there were a lot of discussions about the battlefield ahead, and references to how narrowly Trump had escaped death on the campaign trail. On Wednesday, after Kirk was assassinated onstage in Utah, it felt, to many, like the war was here. “People warned him, ‘Hey, Charlie, you’re the most exposed person than anybody in this movement,’ ” Steve Bannon said on his streaming show. “Charlie Kirk’s a casualty of war. We’re at war in this country.” On the House floor, Speaker Mike Johnson interrupted votes to hold a moment of silence for Kirk. Lauren Boebert shouted that they should be praying out loud: “Silent prayers get silent results.” Anna Paulina Luna yelled, at Democrats, “Y’all caused this!”

    I decided to go out. There was a vigil for Kirk at St. Joseph’s, a Catholic church near the Capitol. The service lasted twelve minutes. By the time I arrived, the pews were empty; in the dark hallway outside the nave, I ran into a Senate staffer, who had heard about the vigil in an e-mail blast. “He represented a lot of people, whether you agreed with him or not,” he said, of Kirk.

    Outside, two men were talking under a street lamp, holding printed programs. “The vigil used the Sermon on the Mount as a direct comparison between Kirk and Jesus,” one of them, whose name was Ethan, told me. “You could think about him going around the country as a controversial truthteller, spreading the Gospel. Some people will call him a provocateur, and others will call him a prophet.”

    “He was one of the nicer people on the right,” the other man, who wouldn’t give his name, said. “I’m concerned about what may follow.”

    Ethan responded, “Some people are straight up celebrating this guy’s death right now.”

    “It validates the idea that the right is under attack,” the other man said. “Maybe the quiet majority will grow bigger. I could see people saying, ‘I’m not going to put my face out there, because that guy did and he got killed for doing it.’ ”

    “I think the real question is whether or not things start online or in real life,” Ethan said.

    The other man asked Ethan if he had seen the video of the assassination. Ethan hadn’t. “Fuck that,” the man said. “You should watch it. Do you want to watch it right now?”

    Joe Allen, a correspondent for Bannon’s show, happened to be crossing the street alone in the dark. I walked with him toward Pennsylvania Avenue. I thought people might gather at Butterworth’s, a sort of informal MAGA clubhouse, to mourn Kirk. One of the restaurant’s owners told me that he planned to hire armed security the next day. The jubilance of the Inauguration felt like a long time ago. “Be safe out there,” one of the vigilgoers had told me. “I hope this doesn’t turn into a hot civil war.” Allen said, “I feel a dark foreboding. The swelling negative energy . . . and then this, and the constant replay online. Yeah, we’re going to be watching these people die for days, weeks, I don’t know, over and over again. There’s so much callousness and cruelty, and I can already see it building momentum for bloodlust—for revenge, too. If you feel like your tribe is under attack, you draw blood.” He added, “I’m concerned about a strengthening of state power, from Trump all the way down. But, more immediately, potential copycats.”

    We paused in front of a storefront where a TV was playing CNN. Trump was onscreen, speaking from the Oval Office. “My Administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after—” The video faded out. “Certainly the President is not sort of calling for calm on all sides,” Anderson Cooper said. Kara Swisher was his guest. “There’s never an opportunity not to have an opportunity to hate,” she replied. “It’s a real weaponization of words.”

    Outside Butterworth’s, a man in a suit paced the sidewalk. I overheard snippets of his call: “We’re gonna put a text out. . . . The Democrats . . . ” A group was smoking near the door. “Charlie did everything fucking right,” a person close to the Administration told me. “The entire point was, I’m going to sit down and talk to people and try to change their minds. If you don’t like my ideas, come sit down with me. To quote Charlie, ‘When the discourse stops, the violence starts.’ When someone believes in the system as much as he does, if you’re going to kill him . . .” He went on, “There are malignant parts of the right begging for an excuse. Charlie was the bulwark against that. You have an absolutely fucking handicapped political structure in the U.S.”

    [ad_2]

    Antonia Hitchens

    Source link