I'm basically anti-Trump, pro-government, and anti-violence. But if the government is taken over by an evil power and violence is the only way to prevent mass murder -- this is not a good survey...
About 1 in 3 Americans now believe that "violence against the government can at times be justified"
I'm basically anti-Trump, pro-government, and anti-violence. But if the government is taken over by an evil power and violence is the only way to prevent mass murder -- this is not a good survey question.
The United States was founded by violence against the government. Anyone who doesn't think it can be justified at times is essentially implying that the US should still be a colony. So yeah, bad...
The United States was founded by violence against the government. Anyone who doesn't think it can be justified at times is essentially implying that the US should still be a colony.
Well, yes, but then why did 2 of 3 say it can never be justified? Maybe because people can interpret survey questions however they like. The number of people thinking about the American Revolution...
Well, yes, but then why did 2 of 3 say it can never be justified?
Maybe because people can interpret survey questions however they like. The number of people thinking about the American Revolution is unknown. We can't ask "what did you mean by your answer?"
That's basically my point about why it's a bad question, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny and is really just there to sound scary. I don't have data on it, but I would bet literally any amount of...
That's basically my point about why it's a bad question, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny and is really just there to sound scary.
I don't have data on it, but I would bet literally any amount of money that 2/3 of the country doesn't think the revolutionary war was some kind of moral failing.
Which indicates the answer we're getting from the question is not in line with what people actually believe. So it shouldn't be taken at face value.
Or I have horribly underestimated the number of US citizens that think we would be better off as British colonists. Technically that's possible.
This feels pedantic to me. The American revolution that birthed the modern concept of Democracy produced a government centered around circumscribing the rights of the government against its people...
This feels pedantic to me. The American revolution that birthed the modern concept of Democracy produced a government centered around circumscribing the rights of the government against its people and, importantly, allowing citizens to petition the government for redress. It is the ability for democracies to change with the input of its citizens (where more authoritarian systems cannot, say in the hybrid regime style of PAP's Singapore or the more classically authoritarian post-Soviet Turkmenistan) that makes them robust. Understandably, if you're living in a relatively democratic country and given this question, one can make the inference that political violence is using violence to sidestep democratic procedures in your country for a political cause. You're right that there's vagary in the question and that perhaps adding the qualifiers about the democratic process would help, but I think the question is fine as is.
I am probably reading way to much into your comment, but you seem to imply there were no modern democracies prior to the American revolution. There were lots of democracies prior to the American...
The American revolution that birthed the modern concept of Democracy produced a government centered around circumscribing the rights of the government against its people and, importantly, allowing citizens to petition the government for redress.
I am probably reading way to much into your comment, but you seem to imply there were no modern democracies prior to the American revolution.
There were lots of democracies prior to the American Revolution.
Specifically, the right to petition the government for redress came from The English Bill of Rights.
I think the major innovation America birthed was a democracy based on a written constitution.
Which is still fairly unique. I think most other democracies rely more on conventions and laws that can more easily be overturned.
It is the ability for democracies to change with the input of its citizens ... that makes them robust.
Curiously, I think the written constitution makes it harder to make fundamental changes based on the input of citizens.
Many democracies have moved to proportional voting, with a simple majority vote from their citizens.
America does not allow citizens to have direct input on constitutional amendments. Due to a decision made by the ruling class in America in 1787.
And while the American Constitution is delightfully succinct, it's open to interpretations that make the current system seem less robust than other democracies. Citizens United is an egregious example, as there used to be at least some transparency on who was buying American politicians.
I think that is the whole point of the original article. Not that the American version of democracy is more modern and more robust. But that when the government stops representing the people, the people stand up and represent themselves. And that until recently, most Americans never thought that would ever be required again, because they had so much faith in the constitution.
That's what I meant by "modern Democracy". I probably am letting the word "modern" here do too much work, but I couldn't really find a more succinct way to make that concept come across. I'll be a...
I think the major innovation America birthed was a democracy based on a written constitution.
Which is still fairly unique. I think most other democracies rely more on conventions and laws that can more easily be overturned.
That's what I meant by "modern Democracy". I probably am letting the word "modern" here do too much work, but I couldn't really find a more succinct way to make that concept come across. I'll be a bit more careful next time (and thanks for the feedback for sure.) I understand that the British Bill of Rights, and its intellectual predecssor the Magna Carta, did introduce the concept of circumscribing the government. I also don't mean to imply at all that America was the sole author of Democracy and even if America produced a Constitutional Democracy, like anything in the Great Conversation these ideas came from other Enlightenment-era thinkers as well (most of whom were not in the Americas or not even British). I don't mean to imply in some American Exceptionalist way that this was a solely American invention.
I think that is the whole point of the original article. Not that the American version of democracy is more modern and more robust. But that when the government stops representing the people, the people stand up and represent themselves. And that until recently, most Americans never thought that would ever be required again, because they had so much faith in the constitution.
Most definitely. I just meant to clarify that, in America and in the context of the survey question, that political violence was used to indicate a lack of faith in the Constitution and thus the American democratic project as a whole. I felt that the question, while somewhat vague, was definitely good enough to get reasonable responses from the polled polity.
You know, even four years ago I would have said the American version of democracy with a written constitution was more modern and robust. My thinking is rapidly evolving, especially in the context...
I'll be a bit more careful next time
You know, even four years ago I would have said the American version of democracy with a written constitution was more modern and robust.
My thinking is rapidly evolving, especially in the context of these threads, so I didn't mean to nit pick on a few words.
Those few words made me realize how weird it is that two-thirds of the ruling class in 1788 can bind the general population so effectively. And how easy it is for life time judicial appointees to interpret those words however they see fit. And how life time judicial appointees are largely determined not by a popular vote, but votes by states. Which is unlike any other democracy, where a simple majority can rewrite the rules.
I try to remember that the American Founding Fathers were really just winging it. Today we have mathematical frameworks which show that First-Past-the-Post elections degenerate into the balkanized...
Those few words made me realize how weird it is that two-thirds of the ruling class in 1788 can bind the general population so effectively. And how easy it is for life time judicial appointees to interpret those words however they see fit. And how life time judicial appointees are largely determined not by a popular vote, but votes by states. Which is unlike any other democracy, where a simple majority can rewrite the rules.
I try to remember that the American Founding Fathers were really just winging it. Today we have mathematical frameworks which show that First-Past-the-Post elections degenerate into the balkanized two-party system that we are stuck with today. We know that using electors to separate citizens from their votes creates a torrid set of byzantine politics around seat allocation. The founders were working within the limitations of their times and knowledge and biases.
(Which is why I've never been a traditionalist when it comes to the Constitution. The state of knowledge changes all the time. Abiding by the Constitution as was created 300 years ago seems silly.)
It's not disagreeing with the revolutionary war that I think implies that the US should still be a colony, so much as believing that violence against the government is never justified. I don't see...
It's not disagreeing with the revolutionary war that I think implies that the US should still be a colony, so much as believing that violence against the government is never justified. I don't see how someone can say violence is never justified while simultaneously thinking a violent revolution was a good thing. It seems hypocritical to me.
And to be clear I'm coming from the perspective of someone who thinks that violence is sometimes justified as a means of creating political change. It comes with a high price, because it can cause a lot of collateral damage and potentially make things a whole lot worse. But historically it's one of the prime ways that governments rise and fall. It's efficacy can't really be disputed.
I think a lot of people have a knee-jerk reaction to denounce violence in all forms. And that's probably a good thing. But my point was that I don't think those beliefs actually hold up to even casual scrutiny. And I don't think the question being asked really engages with that nuance.
As far as my personal views on whether the revolutionary war was justified, you're right that it was complicated. On one hand the promise of equality and freedom that the founding fathers laid out was a lie from the beginning. But on the other hand both monarchy and imperialism can go die in a fire. Like you said, people have the right to self determination.
Edit: The question doesn't distinguish between "There is a point where eventually violence is necessary to ensure the government represents the will of the people" and "IMMA GET MAH GUNN AN SHOOT SUM LIBS". Which uh... seems like an important distinction.
I've had this thought kicking around in my head for a few years now. If California, as a whole, decided to stop paying federal taxes, what could be done? Well the first logical step for the...
Also, if I can just indulge in a bit of alternate history for a second, what would a non-violent, successful American Revolution looked like? The American Revolution and the American Revolutionary War were two different things, and I think it'd be really fascinating to read a book that explores an alternate timeline where independence was achieved peacefully.
I've had this thought kicking around in my head for a few years now. If California, as a whole, decided to stop paying federal taxes, what could be done? Well the first logical step for the government would be to pursue alternative means for those taxes - they might fine or sue companies if they paid workers without also subjecting that income to federal taxes. Suddenly the federal government has to sue tens of thousands of companies and increase their bookkeeping potential many-fold. For a state like California the potential wealth they'd be losing out on would make sense to potentially pursue, but would the republican states be willing to scale up the number of accountants and lawyers to sue California for this money? And what happens if the federal court finds in favor of the federal government, but some of the companies house their money in California? I think things get a lot more complicated. Furthermore, if a state such as California doesn't actively push the federal government out of the state and allows it to continue to operate buildings, a non-violent approach so to speak, what recourse does the federal government have? Do they send troops in to physically carry money out of the banks? Who's to say the banks even have any significant sum of physical money there and whether the bank would cooperate in letting the federal government know what accounts belong to their companies? Also what would happen if a state such as California immediately appealed to NATO or the EU or other transnational organizations for protection? What if they chose to be non-violent but other nations saw it as an opportunity to be violent against a country they hate with relative impunity?
I have literally no idea how this would play out, but it's a very interesting theoretical play-space to me.
Basically a rent strike, but for taxes. I'd wager they'd send in the military to remove the politicians and call for special elections that will absolutely not be rigged. Maybe make some hefty...
If California, as a whole, decided to stop paying federal taxes, what could be done?
Basically a rent strike, but for taxes. I'd wager they'd send in the military to remove the politicians and call for special elections that will absolutely not be rigged.
Maybe make some hefty examples of some liberal hollywood types.
Not really. The United States was the local governments of the colonies banding together to rebel against the imperial government of the British crown. The Continental Army was put together by a...
Not really. The United States was the local governments of the colonies banding together to rebel against the imperial government of the British crown. The Continental Army was put together by a Continental Congress of elected officials acting as trustees of the constituencies they represented. It was emphatically not just a mob of armed yahoos revolting against the concept of there being a government.
That also, incidentally, is what the well regulated militia qualifier in the second amendment is referring to. Again, not just having any yahoo be armed to the teeth and imposing his will by force if the political process doesn’t suit him.
Not necessary. There are Gandhians and followers of MLK (Martin Luther King) who hold the position that violence can never be justified against anyone (Govt. or otherwise), and that all protests...
Not necessary. There are Gandhians and followers of MLK (Martin Luther King) who hold the position that violence can never be justified against anyone (Govt. or otherwise), and that all protests should be of non-violent and diplomatic means.
That is a great article! The question is open to interpretation, but was worded clearly enough for most Americans to agree on the same answer back in 1995. Only ten percent of Americans who...
That is a great article!
The question is open to interpretation, but was worded clearly enough for most Americans to agree on the same answer back in 1995.
Only ten percent of Americans who answered yes to the question back in 1995 interpreted it to mean "can you think of any justification for citizens to take violent action against any government"?
Most people probably still interpret the question the same way. "Is it ever possible for the institutions of democracy break down enough in America to justify violence by citizens against the American Government?"
Since 1995, the answer has become increasingly yes.
For those curious, the three states that have no arrests (so far) related to the attempted coup are Vermont, Wyoming, and North Dakota. Source. Arrests by state, behind spoiler because long State...
The Justice Department has arrested 725 people in connection to the riots in nearly all 50 states
For those curious, the three states that have no arrests (so far) related to the attempted coup are Vermont, Wyoming, and North Dakota. Source.
It's a terrible metaphor, but this "wielded by capital" thing doesn't make much sense. Most big corporations were either neutral or against him, and he rarely did what they wanted. (The tax cut...
It's a terrible metaphor, but this "wielded by capital" thing doesn't make much sense. Most big corporations were either neutral or against him, and he rarely did what they wanted. (The tax cut being a major exception, but any Republican would have done that.)
I would like to remind everyone that almost nothing Trump did is at odds against the broader Republican platform. And that many small businesses were very pro-Trump (I can't eat at my favorite...
he rarely did what they wanted
I would like to remind everyone that almost nothing Trump did is at odds against the broader Republican platform. And that many small businesses were very pro-Trump (I can't eat at my favorite donut place anymore). I'd wager most big corps didn't really care about Trump outside the trade wars, and that most denouncement were probably lip service.
He was just far less elegant about it. A sampling from Politico
Defunding ACA
Shrinking the food safety net
Bringing more religion into schools
Weaking overtime pay for "salaried" workers
Rolling back climate change improvements
Gigantic tax cuts
Rescinding sexual harrassment policies
Weakening racial discrimination policies
Making immigration harder
Loosened banking regulation
Stacking courts
These have been the Republican platform for over 20 years. Probably longer, but I've witnessed that much of it personally.
Here are some things big businesses/owners probably didn't like:
Making it harder to remain anonymous through shell companies
Getting tougher on monopolization (probably by accident)
Making immigration harder is something many businesses don't like. Immigration restrictions (like a shortage of H1B's) get in the way of hiring talented workers from other countries.
Making immigration harder is something many businesses don't like. Immigration restrictions (like a shortage of H1B's) get in the way of hiring talented workers from other countries.
I'm basically anti-Trump, pro-government, and anti-violence. But if the government is taken over by an evil power and violence is the only way to prevent mass murder -- this is not a good survey question.
The United States was founded by violence against the government. Anyone who doesn't think it can be justified at times is essentially implying that the US should still be a colony.
So yeah, bad question
Well, yes, but then why did 2 of 3 say it can never be justified?
Maybe because people can interpret survey questions however they like. The number of people thinking about the American Revolution is unknown. We can't ask "what did you mean by your answer?"
That's basically my point about why it's a bad question, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny and is really just there to sound scary.
I don't have data on it, but I would bet literally any amount of money that 2/3 of the country doesn't think the revolutionary war was some kind of moral failing.
Which indicates the answer we're getting from the question is not in line with what people actually believe. So it shouldn't be taken at face value.
Or I have horribly underestimated the number of US citizens that think we would be better off as British colonists. Technically that's possible.
This feels pedantic to me. The American revolution that birthed the modern concept of Democracy produced a government centered around circumscribing the rights of the government against its people and, importantly, allowing citizens to petition the government for redress. It is the ability for democracies to change with the input of its citizens (where more authoritarian systems cannot, say in the hybrid regime style of PAP's Singapore or the more classically authoritarian post-Soviet Turkmenistan) that makes them robust. Understandably, if you're living in a relatively democratic country and given this question, one can make the inference that political violence is using violence to sidestep democratic procedures in your country for a political cause. You're right that there's vagary in the question and that perhaps adding the qualifiers about the democratic process would help, but I think the question is fine as is.
I am probably reading way to much into your comment, but you seem to imply there were no modern democracies prior to the American revolution.
There were lots of democracies prior to the American Revolution.
Specifically, the right to petition the government for redress came from The English Bill of Rights.
I think the major innovation America birthed was a democracy based on a written constitution.
Which is still fairly unique. I think most other democracies rely more on conventions and laws that can more easily be overturned.
Curiously, I think the written constitution makes it harder to make fundamental changes based on the input of citizens.
Many democracies have moved to proportional voting, with a simple majority vote from their citizens.
America does not allow citizens to have direct input on constitutional amendments. Due to a decision made by the ruling class in America in 1787.
And while the American Constitution is delightfully succinct, it's open to interpretations that make the current system seem less robust than other democracies. Citizens United is an egregious example, as there used to be at least some transparency on who was buying American politicians.
I think that is the whole point of the original article. Not that the American version of democracy is more modern and more robust. But that when the government stops representing the people, the people stand up and represent themselves. And that until recently, most Americans never thought that would ever be required again, because they had so much faith in the constitution.
That's what I meant by "modern Democracy". I probably am letting the word "modern" here do too much work, but I couldn't really find a more succinct way to make that concept come across. I'll be a bit more careful next time (and thanks for the feedback for sure.) I understand that the British Bill of Rights, and its intellectual predecssor the Magna Carta, did introduce the concept of circumscribing the government. I also don't mean to imply at all that America was the sole author of Democracy and even if America produced a Constitutional Democracy, like anything in the Great Conversation these ideas came from other Enlightenment-era thinkers as well (most of whom were not in the Americas or not even British). I don't mean to imply in some American Exceptionalist way that this was a solely American invention.
Most definitely. I just meant to clarify that, in America and in the context of the survey question, that political violence was used to indicate a lack of faith in the Constitution and thus the American democratic project as a whole. I felt that the question, while somewhat vague, was definitely good enough to get reasonable responses from the polled polity.
You know, even four years ago I would have said the American version of democracy with a written constitution was more modern and robust.
My thinking is rapidly evolving, especially in the context of these threads, so I didn't mean to nit pick on a few words.
Those few words made me realize how weird it is that two-thirds of the ruling class in 1788 can bind the general population so effectively. And how easy it is for life time judicial appointees to interpret those words however they see fit. And how life time judicial appointees are largely determined not by a popular vote, but votes by states. Which is unlike any other democracy, where a simple majority can rewrite the rules.
So thank you for your comment.
I try to remember that the American Founding Fathers were really just winging it. Today we have mathematical frameworks which show that First-Past-the-Post elections degenerate into the balkanized two-party system that we are stuck with today. We know that using electors to separate citizens from their votes creates a torrid set of byzantine politics around seat allocation. The founders were working within the limitations of their times and knowledge and biases.
(Which is why I've never been a traditionalist when it comes to the Constitution. The state of knowledge changes all the time. Abiding by the Constitution as was created 300 years ago seems silly.)
It's not disagreeing with the revolutionary war that I think implies that the US should still be a colony, so much as believing that violence against the government is never justified. I don't see how someone can say violence is never justified while simultaneously thinking a violent revolution was a good thing. It seems hypocritical to me.
And to be clear I'm coming from the perspective of someone who thinks that violence is sometimes justified as a means of creating political change. It comes with a high price, because it can cause a lot of collateral damage and potentially make things a whole lot worse. But historically it's one of the prime ways that governments rise and fall. It's efficacy can't really be disputed.
I think a lot of people have a knee-jerk reaction to denounce violence in all forms. And that's probably a good thing. But my point was that I don't think those beliefs actually hold up to even casual scrutiny. And I don't think the question being asked really engages with that nuance.
As far as my personal views on whether the revolutionary war was justified, you're right that it was complicated. On one hand the promise of equality and freedom that the founding fathers laid out was a lie from the beginning. But on the other hand both monarchy and imperialism can go die in a fire. Like you said, people have the right to self determination.
Edit: The question doesn't distinguish between "There is a point where eventually violence is necessary to ensure the government represents the will of the people" and "IMMA GET MAH GUNN AN SHOOT SUM LIBS". Which uh... seems like an important distinction.
I've had this thought kicking around in my head for a few years now. If California, as a whole, decided to stop paying federal taxes, what could be done? Well the first logical step for the government would be to pursue alternative means for those taxes - they might fine or sue companies if they paid workers without also subjecting that income to federal taxes. Suddenly the federal government has to sue tens of thousands of companies and increase their bookkeeping potential many-fold. For a state like California the potential wealth they'd be losing out on would make sense to potentially pursue, but would the republican states be willing to scale up the number of accountants and lawyers to sue California for this money? And what happens if the federal court finds in favor of the federal government, but some of the companies house their money in California? I think things get a lot more complicated. Furthermore, if a state such as California doesn't actively push the federal government out of the state and allows it to continue to operate buildings, a non-violent approach so to speak, what recourse does the federal government have? Do they send troops in to physically carry money out of the banks? Who's to say the banks even have any significant sum of physical money there and whether the bank would cooperate in letting the federal government know what accounts belong to their companies? Also what would happen if a state such as California immediately appealed to NATO or the EU or other transnational organizations for protection? What if they chose to be non-violent but other nations saw it as an opportunity to be violent against a country they hate with relative impunity?
I have literally no idea how this would play out, but it's a very interesting theoretical play-space to me.
Basically a rent strike, but for taxes. I'd wager they'd send in the military to remove the politicians and call for special elections that will absolutely not be rigged.
Maybe make some hefty examples of some liberal hollywood types.
This is a fun thought experiment though.
Not really. The United States was the local governments of the colonies banding together to rebel against the imperial government of the British crown. The Continental Army was put together by a Continental Congress of elected officials acting as trustees of the constituencies they represented. It was emphatically not just a mob of armed yahoos revolting against the concept of there being a government.
That also, incidentally, is what the well regulated militia qualifier in the second amendment is referring to. Again, not just having any yahoo be armed to the teeth and imposing his will by force if the political process doesn’t suit him.
Not necessary. There are Gandhians and followers of MLK (Martin Luther King) who hold the position that violence can never be justified against anyone (Govt. or otherwise), and that all protests should be of non-violent and diplomatic means.
That is a great article!
The question is open to interpretation, but was worded clearly enough for most Americans to agree on the same answer back in 1995.
Only ten percent of Americans who answered yes to the question back in 1995 interpreted it to mean "can you think of any justification for citizens to take violent action against any government"?
Most people probably still interpret the question the same way. "Is it ever possible for the institutions of democracy break down enough in America to justify violence by citizens against the American Government?"
Since 1995, the answer has become increasingly yes.
For those curious, the three states that have no arrests (so far) related to the attempted coup are Vermont, Wyoming, and North Dakota. Source.
Arrests by state, behind spoiler because long
trump is not holding the dagger. trump is the dagger, being wielded by capital.
It's a terrible metaphor, but this "wielded by capital" thing doesn't make much sense. Most big corporations were either neutral or against him, and he rarely did what they wanted. (The tax cut being a major exception, but any Republican would have done that.)
I would like to remind everyone that almost nothing Trump did is at odds against the broader Republican platform. And that many small businesses were very pro-Trump (I can't eat at my favorite donut place anymore). I'd wager most big corps didn't really care about Trump outside the trade wars, and that most denouncement were probably lip service.
He was just far less elegant about it. A sampling from Politico
These have been the Republican platform for over 20 years. Probably longer, but I've witnessed that much of it personally.
Here are some things big businesses/owners probably didn't like:
Making immigration harder is something many businesses don't like. Immigration restrictions (like a shortage of H1B's) get in the way of hiring talented workers from other countries.
Maybe, but the main point was that Trump is not some anonomly against the broader Republican platform.
Not anymore he isn't, after pushing non-Trump Republicans out for the most part.
I'd say he's the hand holding the dagger (the dagger being his followers.) He wields the blade, but is in turn only a part of that which controls him.