Leadership matters a great deal for motivating collective action.
I see a lot of fantastic discussions, papers, threads, and op-eds about the insurrection from experts from various fields.
As a social scientist, I want to add that it's important to understand that collective action like we saw yesterday is due to *many* factors.
Leadership matters a great deal for motivating collective action.
This came to head with the concerted efforts by GOP members of the Senate and House who tried to overturn the election certification.
This was primarily spearheaded on social media, which is why freezing Trump's social media accounts is such a big deal.
From Fox to OAN to Newsmax, these false messages were spread to millions of homes.
The people who stormed the Capitol came from racist and pro-fascist groups (like the Proud Boys) and proudly waived the Confederate flags during their attempted insurrection.
It's impossible to imagine police officers taking selfies with another group as they violently invaded government property.
This is bound up in sectarian politics, where extreme affective polarization leads people to see the election of their political opponent as a mortal (and immoral) threat.
Collective human behavior is complex and there is space for expertise on all of these angles since these (and other) factors likely all matter a great deal.
It's important to think more deeply about how they interact. In the real world, collective human action is never caused by a single factor.
Accept that these people do not all share the same assumptions, identities, backgrounds and goals. This makes it impossible to find a simple, single explanation for all of them.
More from Politics
Here we go. Tag 4 des Impeachments. Trumps Verteidigung.
Es wird argumentiert, dass Trump nur habe sicherstellen wollen, dass die Wahl fair abgelaufen sei. Die Verteidigung zeigt Clips einzelner Demokraten, die der Zertifizierung von Trumps Stimmen 2016 widersprechen. (Dass es 2016 keinen von Obama gesandten Mob aufs Kapitol gab?Egal!)
Die intellektuelle Unehrlichkeit ist so unfassbar, ich weiß kaum, wo ich hier überhaupt anfangen soll; so viele fucking Strohmänner auf einmal.
Die Verteidigung spielt random Clips, in denen Demokraten “fight” sagen, fast zehn Minuten lang. Weil Trump 20mal am 6. Januar “fight” gesagt hat. Dies ist kein Witz. Komisch, dass sonst die Folge nie war, dass ein Mob das Kapitol gestürmt hat und Pence hängen wollte
“Dieser Fall geht um politischen Hass” Ich mein, ja. “Die House Managers hassen Donald Trump.”
So close.
Michael van der Veen begins Trump's defense: "The article of impeachment now before the Senate is an unjust and blatantly unconstitutional act of political vengeance" pic.twitter.com/xRaZHEPIaC
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 12, 2021
Es wird argumentiert, dass Trump nur habe sicherstellen wollen, dass die Wahl fair abgelaufen sei. Die Verteidigung zeigt Clips einzelner Demokraten, die der Zertifizierung von Trumps Stimmen 2016 widersprechen. (Dass es 2016 keinen von Obama gesandten Mob aufs Kapitol gab?Egal!)
Die intellektuelle Unehrlichkeit ist so unfassbar, ich weiß kaum, wo ich hier überhaupt anfangen soll; so viele fucking Strohmänner auf einmal.
Die Verteidigung spielt random Clips, in denen Demokraten “fight” sagen, fast zehn Minuten lang. Weil Trump 20mal am 6. Januar “fight” gesagt hat. Dies ist kein Witz. Komisch, dass sonst die Folge nie war, dass ein Mob das Kapitol gestürmt hat und Pence hängen wollte
WATCH: Trump's defense plays nearly 10 minutes of clips showing Democrats using the word "fight," to defend Trump using the word "fight" about 20 times in his speech to supporters before the Capitol riot began https://t.co/YUg7sgxuDX pic.twitter.com/3eMNp7E2S2
— CBS News (@CBSNews) February 12, 2021
“Dieser Fall geht um politischen Hass” Ich mein, ja. “Die House Managers hassen Donald Trump.”
So close.