On Reducing Public Fears and Threats of Political Violence
To reduce the risk, an essential first step is a moratorium on threats. On election day and into the evening, I was on call to respond to a media outlet in the event of significant violence and thus spent the days refreshing media feeds for bad news. I gave an interview about the possibilities for violence on election eve, and I noted that when a threat is made, it does not just threaten the target—it puts the threatener and their colleagues at risk from retaliatory threats, themselves. Further, such threats drive public fears.
This also means avoiding “joke” threats. The Transportation Safety Administration asks the public to refrain from making bomb and other threat jokes for a reason—they must take them seriously.
This further means a moratorium on serious accusations of Nazism, fascism, Stalinism, creating dictatorships, violent extremism, and so on except for those very few to whom these terms apply. Such accusations raise the risk, even if small and inadvertent, of so-called stochastic terrorism (PDF). This means those who hear the accusations can come to believe that they have no choice but to attack those accused, even without direct incitement to do so.
Finally, genuinely threatening activity must be addressed. In addition to reporting credible threats of violence to authorities, there are ways to effectively counter (PDF) extremists’ “free speech” with more speech.
Longer term, making public assurances about people’s safety would start reducing public fears and rebuilding trust. There are many Americans who fear for the future of U.S. democracy and civil rights. Assurances to the contrary need to be made, publicly, loudly, and repeatedly. There is evidence doing so can reduce fears and resulting threats.
_____________________________________
There is evidence that the public’s suspicions increase when they feel governmental decisions are being made in an opaque way without public input.
_____________________________________
More broadly, there is evidence that the public’s suspicions increase when they feel governmental decisions are being made in an opaque way without public input. It would be very helpful for government and media to do a better job providing transparency on how major decisions are being made, as well as providing public stakeholders with a meaningful voice in advising those decisions while supporting civic discourse.
Yes, this is much easier said than done, and there are entire communities of practice on these topics. There is evidence that providing transparency and voice in decisions, along with proof that voices are being heard, can help reduce fears and build trust.
This year’s elections were completed peacefully, a good first step toward preventing political violence and mass unrest. However, there is a long way to go. The path starts with cooling off threats and unfounded accusations and providing assurances on honoring the rights of Americans.
John S. Hollywood is a senior operations researcher at RAND, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research institution. This article is published courtesy of RAND.
