Or is Creating the Sense of a Nation Divided in Two the Biggest Threat?
No political party in any democracy should make domestic terrorism or undermining democracy a large part of its governing method, but that just might be the best description of what we’re experiencing now. On the other hand, maybe the country is less polarized than we’ve been led to believe we are, by DJT, the GOP, etc. and the way different media have been covering violent events and politics?
According to Reuters, the level of political violence has been drastically on the rise since DJT’s run for President in 2016. Some of these threats were subtle and not recognized for what they were. Others were grossly obvious, like Jan 6, when DJT worked the crowd with statements like, “We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
Maybe the rhetoric of DJT, and several other members of the GOP, that has inspired violence should be considered a form of domestic terrorism?
The latest example are his threats against judges, probable witnesses, and possible jury members in the Jack Smith Jan 6 case, which have led to a request for a narrow gag order to stop “inflammatory” and “intimidating” comments. DJT also said, in another of the cases he now faces for alleged crimes against the nation, “If you go after me, I will go after you.” He has a history of threatening judges, threatening the rule of law, democracy itself, over and over again.
What fueled his power was pushing hate, fear, and grievance. Creating in our nation a sense that everything was about to tip over. Or that there were two sides, his and the sinners against him. And these “others,” mostly non-white, non-Christian people, or “left-wing extremists,” must be stopped at any cost.
He added to this by making extreme, shocking statements that were either untrue or exaggerated. Ones that fit his purposes and narrow perspective in that moment, to promote himself above all others. According to Slate, lying about the actual threat posed by COVID, not so much to protect us from panicking but more to avoid rattling the stock market. Suggesting injecting bleach might be a helpful treatment for COVID. Lying that “caravans of immigrants” of hardened criminals were invading our nation, when no such thing was happening. He continuously lied about and attacked President Obama.
This shock doctrine activity is a threat to all of us. On 9/11/2023 I was listening to MSNBC Deadline Whitehouse. This program was frightening in making this threat clear. The host, Nicolle Wallace, posed the question, “If 9/11 happened today, would the nation come together as it did back in 2001? Are we capable of national unity today?”
The guests on MSNBC talked about the May DHS bulletin saying the US remains in a heightened threat environment, and that threat is not from foreign terrorists but domestic ones. News analyst Mary McCord discussed how 9/11 was an attack on national infrastructure to sow fear and discord. And the political violence happening today has this same goal. To increase the fear and division, to increase doubts about the government and ourselves, and democracy.
Politico reports 60 incidents of attacks on major grid infrastructure happened just this year. And these attacks are mostly inspired by hate and politics. For example, the recent attacks on the power grid in Baltimore, a majority black population, were carried out by people aiming their virulence at black people. How do we deal with this threat?
And is the House GOP threat of shutting down the government to impose on all of us what they want, not caring if it destroys the nation’s credit rating and makes life even more difficult for most of us⎼ is this another form of politics by extremist terrorism?
DJT shocked us in so many ways. He appealed to those who felt under siege, angered at somehow being left out or their standing in their community undermined. Or they felt the government was not serving them, and things were changing beyond their control. Or they thought, for example, white males were once in charge but no longer. He took their fears and transformed them into hate, to blind them to others and justify anger and violence.
But when DJT is not around, not in our physical presence or in our thoughts, or the issues that he raises and distorts are not spoken about, what then? There is a new phrase common to our contemporary lexicon: “as long as we don’t speak politics, or speak of him who shall not be named, we’re fine,” with our extended families, neighbors, etc. And research from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace confirms this.
Yet, much that is shared on social media, by many analysts from different news outlets, and the actions of several politicians, say we are so polarized as to be near civil war. But in terms of real issues, even across parties, there is much agreement. The agreement persists even on some hot issues like abortion, gun violence, and teaching history⎼ but often only one “side” wants to put the issue on the forefront of the national agenda. But we are “emotionally polarized,” meaning we don’t like those we see as opponents in a different party.
What we most get wrong are our views of how others perceive us. The people most identified with a set of beliefs, for example those self-identified as progressives or extreme conservatives, are most likely to misperceive the actual positions held by others.
So, what do we do? Too many of us think in terms of “two sides.” But are there really two sides in this, or maybe in any situation? In reality, and certainly in a democracy, there are millions of sides. Two sides for too many really means one side. Our side or no side. Polarization rears its ugliness less often when we’re mowing the lawn, preparing dinner, or hearing of the pain experienced by a friend or neighbor, but more when we’re talking ideas, beliefs, or abstractions. We might think we win only when any opposition to what we think is eliminated. But to think this way means continuous war, not only against others but ourselves.
Democracy depends on our ability to listen to each other and to diverse viewpoints; to recognize the humanity of others and the need we have for them. So even when we disagree, we’re able to compromise and give a little, so we can get even more, get a functioning nation that at least mostly serves everyone.
In the same vein, on the anniversary of 9/11 President Biden spoke eloquently and passionately not only about remembering those who had sacrificed their lives, but on the fact that our resolve to defend our rights and constitution was not then broken. And how we need to defend our rights and constitution again now, against terrorism in all forms, including political violence and “the poisonous politics of difference and division.”
So, as a beginning, we can realize the aim of the threats from DJT and many GOP is to overturn democracy, strip away our rights, and turn this nation into a dictatorship. To turn us against each other so we can’t work together, and we give up. Instead, we can resist the impulse to emotional division and foster a more mindful awareness of our own feelings and emotions. Whenever we hear hate speech or hear about domestic terrorism, we speak out and do something to promote compassion and community. Whenever we feel fearful or powerless, we take action and do something to help strengthen democracy and get out the vote.
—
This Post is republished on Medium.
—
Photo credit: Unsplash