ARGUMENT: NON-IDEOLOGICAL POLITICAL VIOLENCEExtremist Ideology Is Hard to Pin Down
When it comes to extremist motivations for political violence, their varied sources and the role of mental health make it difficult to attribute a root cause and who might have been responsible for leading them down that road. Benjamin Allison writes that thelack of ideological clarity among those who commit acts of political violence is not uncommon.
The two attempts on former President Donald Trump’s life have led many to speculate the motives and ideology which drove the would-be assassins, Thomas Matthew Crooks and Ryan Wesley Routh. Benjamin Allison writes in Lawfarethat beyond their apparent mental instability, the two men had little in common.
Allison continues:
But for all the hubbub, it is difficult to say what specific ideologies, if any, motivated these men to try to kill the former president. Crooks appears to have been seeking to make a name for himself by killing a major politician, regardless of party. Routh’s political ideology is muddled, to put it mildly. The best distillation seems to be that Routh conceived of himself as pro-democracy, anti-tyranny, and anti-Trump, viewing the former president as a threat to democracy and international order.
This lack of ideological clarity is not uncommon. Even if more information is forthcoming, it is not likely that Crooks’s or Routh’s beliefs will fit nicely into the general public’s—or even terrorism analysts’—preconceived notions of what motivates extremists. Classifying perpetrator ideology often poses numerous problems for scholars and analysts because their beliefs are unclear due to a lack of information or the unusual or incoherent cocktail of ideas they espouse. This clashes with public and political desires for explanations that fit into straightforward narratives about why attacks occurred—and who is to blame.
Allison writes that there are often at least three challenges to ascribing, with precision, specific ideological motivations to acts of political violence:
· The first challenge is the information handicap. Often there is not much information available about the perpetrator.
· Second, individuals’ ideologies can be unclear or contain elements from multiple ideological movements.
· Third, individuals may engage in what looks like political violence without holding to a specific ideology.
Allison concludes
When it comes to extremist motivations for political violence, their varied sources and the role of mental health make it difficult to attribute a root cause and who might have been responsible for leading them down that road. Reflexively pointing fingers will do nothing to bring the United States back from the precipice of political violence on which it is teetering.
