Does Violent Political Rhetoric Fuel Support for Political Violence?

[RainDog]

Nathan Kalmoe published a paper on Sept. 15, 2010 that indicates it does.

Abstract

Does violent political rhetoric fuel support for political violence?

Political leaders regularly infuse communication with metaphors of fighting and war. Building from theoretical foundations in media violence research, I field a nationally-representative survey experiment in which subjects are randomly assigned to different forms of the same political advertisements. I find that even mild violent language increases support for political violence among citizens with aggressive predispositions, especially among young adults.

please read the paper before you state your expert opinion.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Fkhx1XcI1QIJ:sitemaker.umich.edu/kalmoe/files/kalmoe_-_political_violence.pdf+nathan+kalmoe+political+rhetoric&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiwDAG3I-6UOJ7O83AGLLpTUkZ8xxjSzxi5-lY715OQVijprj7i4VYT7Jxd0tUFL-V525jazULAEKPbtYfdi5mCWBlXbgnwrBFrI0w1MC8QEffy4Hu1YvtmdMVE_Nu08EQ6Pe2s&sig=AHIEtbQbgFJMh6CKqZdYuMz7LRRNbm3Utg

it's very timely


The specter of political violence haunts even the most stable democracies, including the
United States. Assassins have shot down American Presidents, members of Congress, federal
judges, state governors, mayors, activists, and others. Political extremists have exploded bombs
outside government buildings. Vandals have smashed and ransacked government offices. And
each year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Capitol Police, and the Secret Service respond to
hundreds of threats made against public officials and their families.

Recently, the furor surrounding the national healthcare debate – beginning with raucous
town hall meetings in August 2009 and culminating in the bill’s passage in March 2010 – led to a
spike in death threats against public officials and smashed windows in Congressional offices;
someone even cut the gas line at a house thought to belong to a Congressman after the wrong
address was posted on a hostile website (Hulse 3/25/10). Another man wrote an anti-government
suicide note before flying a small plane into a Texas IRS building, killing himself and one
employee (Brick 2/18/10).

As protestors marched outside the U.S. Capitol building chanting “kill the bill” – some
carrying signs with slogans endorsing explicit violence – political leaders inside and others on
television literally shouted their opposition as they described apocalyptic implications of
passage. Congress members appeared regularly before the crowd, showing their approval by
waving their own “kill the bill” signs and a “don’t tread on me” flag (Hulse 3/21/2010). One
leader posted a map on Facebook with rifle cross-hairs on the districts of lawmakers who voted
for the bill, alongside their names (Palin 3/23/2010a), and later added a Twitter post saying,
“Don’t Retreat – Instead, RELOAD!” (Palin 3/23/2010b). At least four of the “targeted”
members of Congress received death threats or had their offices vandalized with bricks thrown
through their windows (Bazinet 3/24/2010; Rich 3/27/10; Rucker 3/25/2010). The governor of
Minnesota encouraged supporters to “take a 9-iron and smash the window out of big government
in this country,” (Condon 2/19/10). And in the early months of 2010, with the acrimony
surrounding the health care debate, the Senate Sergeant of Arms reported a 300-percent increase
in threats against members of Congress (Lovley 5/25/10). This conjunction of opposition
politicians encouraging hostile crowds and the outbreak of death threats and vandalism led some
commentators to ask whether political leaders were partly to blame for the violence and threats
(Rich 3/27/10).3

(from the introduction)

[RainDog]

1. read this

under fair use for a document that is publicly available to view for free on the internet, for educational purposes I am posting two more paragraphs. If this is a problem, please let me know.

...support for political violence is almost certainly a predictor for propensity to
commit acts political violence, though other factors related to criminality and anti-social
behavior almost certainly intervene to move citizens from violent attitudes to violent behavior.
While social desirability concerns are still relevant, they are less problematic than self-reports of
personally-perpetrated violence in the past or willingness to personally commit political violence
in the future. Thus, support for political violence may indirectly identify respondents with a
higher propensity for engaging in violent political behavior.

...support for violence provides a direct measure of a citizen’s willingness to
contribute to an atmosphere that encourages political violence by others. Although violent
offenders are ultimately responsible for their crimes, the likelihood of violent acts may increase
when political leaders and other citizens give voice to violent feelings toward government or fail
to denounce the expression of violent attitudes. Even when most leaders and citizens may
ultimately restrain themselves from committing violent political acts, a tolerant atmosphere
toward political violence may encourage others with less restraint to act.

[RainDog]

6. another paragraph

This work suggests that political leaders regularly mobilize aggressive responses in audiences. Given the important state goal of minimizing aggression in society, the role of political leaders in stoking aggressive responses in citizens may be of some concern. There is a dark irony in this hidden conflict of interests. But whatever positive effects leaders seek when employing violent metaphors – whether support for themselves, for policies, or for political mobilization – are offset by the implications of violent language for political violence support. These mild rhetorical devices push some citizens to a level of hostility in which they openly wish physical harm on political leaders, contravening vital norms that enable democratic government to function. Yet it is difficult to imagine a workable solution for addressing this problem with constitutionally-protected speech, beyond self-restraint by leaders. The evidence here might be sufficient to make political leaders think twice before infusing violent language into speeches and ads, particularly in situations when their audiences are already boiling over with hostility.

iow, it is grossly irresponsible for national political leaders to create campaigns that are metaphorical wars with metaphorical killing. or cross hairs. or fund raisers that include shooting a target deemed the opponent with an M-16.

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. Does this hold true for music, movies and video games? n/t

[salin]

3. I don't think those things spur the same kind of passion

that can push the unstable over the edge in quite the same way.

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. I think it's incumbent upon those who would restrain speech...

... to clearly articulate why the speech they dislike is a greater risk than the speech they condone.

[RainDog]

7. no one is calling to restrain speech

this paper indicates that it is irresponsible to engage in hate speech as a politician and that the answer is for politicians to choose not to use violence as a way to stir up voters.

[Telly Savalas]

16. This paper is not targeting hate speech.

Rather than focus on the effects of the most incendiary rhetoric – which is episodic and

rare – I assess the aggressive influence of mild violent language – metaphors of war and fighting

– which are far more common in political speech and relatively non-controversial.


What's this "mild violent language"?

Examples abound in some of the most famous American political oratory, including

Lincoln’s “House Divided,” Bryan’s “Cross of Gold,” LBJ’s “Great Society,” FDR’s fireside

chats, and Carter’s “Crisis of Confidence,” among dozens of others. In each case, the language

of fighting and war recur in passages about non-violent issues.


This paper doesn't argue that hate speech leads to violence. It's methodology is to assume that hate speech leads to violence and then tests to see if mild violent language leads to support for hate speech.

[RainDog]

18. the introduction from the author states

I find that even mild violent language increases support for political violence among citizens with aggressive predispositions, especially among young adults.

The title of this thread was the title of the paper. So, the argument is with the author, not me. The quotes are from the paper, not me.

The author notes he did not use the most aggressive language. But the context in which he placed his study was within the tea bagger movement, as stated in the introduction posted here.

[RainDog]

8. it's saying that allowing someone in the crowd to yell "kill him"

without calling them out and saying this rhetoric is not acceptable indicates someone who is not responsible enough to lead this nation.

[RainDog]

13. hi there

nice to see you again. hope you're doing well. :hi:

[Swede]

5. These words of blood and target and killing have consequences.

These sick fantasies of killing the people you have a disagreement should not be spread.

[The Magistrate]

9. Mr. Kalmoe Is Quite Correct, Ma'am

To attempt denying this is to attempt denying flames are hot.

[RainDog]

11. Palin, Dick Armey, Fox News...

all have used inflammatory rhetoric to stir up violence - not simply this horrific mass murder. Their tactics resulted in vandalism of political offices, in attempts to kill at least one pol (tho his brother was the one who was actually targeted), in their followers SPITTING on members of Congress...

this is one of those moments in American history when it is time to ask them if they have no decency.

[HereSince1628]

10. Could Krystalnacht have happened without the Völkischer Beobachter?

Do former drill sergeants make good psychotherapists?

[RainDog]

12. eliminationist rhetoric against the Jews definitely normalized that same action

and the amount of eliminationist rhetoric by the right wing in this nation is enough to give any reasonable person pause.

the Republican Party needs to become reasonable again. They were taken over by the nutters in 1968 and it's gotten progressively worse with every politician they field who was raised in the current nasty Republican political environment.

[RainDog]

14. kick

because we are a nation founded upon laws that are based upon the idea that we can be reasonable people and work to find solutions to problems.

politicians need to start putting the well being of this nation above their own political fortunes.

if they won't do it because they have some sort of basic decency, then they need to do it because, otherwise, they will be considered scumbags to the nth degree.

[RainDog]

15. linking

these stats from this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x580967

[Kievan Rus]

17. Google search: glenn beck richard poplawski