Lots of ordinary Republicans are endorsing violence. We'd like that number to drop, but the precipitating causes deserve our focus even more than trying to persuade that violence is inappropriate. The main trouble is they trust & follow bad leaders. 1/

Lots of Rep leaders, led by the president & other extremists, encouraged direct action. That explicit behavioral leadership is the biggest risk for violence. We've seen other presidential violence effects when Trump has targeted individuals, spiking death threats against them. 2/
Related is the dangerous lie Trump and many Rep leaders have broadcast, claiming w/o a shred of credible evidence that the election was somehow fraudulent. @LilyMasonPhD & I found in Nov that the false belief that Dems cheated *doubled* Rep support for anti-Biden violence. 3/
Specifically: Reps supporting a military coup were 9% if no cheating & 16% if cheating belief, 8% vs. 14% for National Guard resistance by states, and 16% vs. 30% for ordinary citizens to prepare weapons to resist in their communities. Paired w/ action calls, that's bad. 4/
In Oct, we asked partisans if they trust their party's leaders to tell them the truth about the election results. 90% of Dems said prob or def yes, as did 87% of Reps. Notably, definitely was 54% for Dems but 32% for Reps. So some doubt there, but not enough. 5/
The big picture is the epistemic crisis that conservative leaders have caused in the party. Their multi-decade effort to discredit all sources of expert information has led an active fraction of the Rep party to only trust what their top leaders say. 6/ https://t.co/cfg6Q5CWiU
That exclusive trust becomes an even bigger problem when the party leadership is unable to control who leads the party, putting it at risk of takeover by demagogues like Trump, who enflame the party's worst instincts that preexisted him. 7/ https://t.co/2lSO1nT3ua
Of course, the even bigger picture motivating the violence comes into view when we recognize this as part of a multi-century conflict involving white supremacy & Christian nationalism against democratic egalitarianism. Reps are becoming an ethnic party. 8/ https://t.co/5xXKrTnq1n
Historically, US partisan violence has been most acute when partisanship & conflicting social identities like race & religion align. The Civil War, Reconstruction, & the establishment of Jim Crow are those. 9/ https://t.co/SGLWSSjcZL
This is true globally, too, as work by @joshua_gubler & Joel Selway shows. Civil wars are most likely when social IDs & contexts are aligned. That has individual psych parallels in @LilyMasonPhD's work showing that partisan animosity is highest when social identities align. 10/
Lily & I have evidence for our book that racist and sexist views enflame Republican animosity toward Democrats (reinforcing party reputations) while weakening Democrats' animosity toward Republicans (cross-cutting). 11/
I've gone on too long, so let's wrap up: the prox cause here is Rep leaders misleading Rep voters in election beliefs & action. They exclusively trust party leaders & linked social groups due to a long project to discredit all others. And ethno-nationalism is behind that. /end
p.s. I forgot to link @LilyMasonPhD's book. Our co-authored book project is "Radical American Partisanship: Mapping Violent Hostility, Its Causes, & What It Means for Democracy."

We're finishing it this spring, available next year. https://t.co/FviarxehU4
And here's the civil wars work by @joshua_gubler & Selway I mentioned. I could add a lot more cites here, of course, but other duties are calling... https://t.co/Uzz2ojImEC
And shout-outs to @MattGrossmann, @DaveAHopkins, @julia_azari, & @owasow whose essays I linked above but didn't tag.
15% of Reps endorsing the Capitol attack is similar to what Lily & I see for party violence more generally.

It is a notable decline from the 45% supporting the attack the night of the attack in YouGov’s survey. Likely due to many Rep leaders against it. https://t.co/QwF1wHJ1Tr
And lastly (again), I haven't said anything on the role of extremist groups, micro-motives of who acts vs. not, & other dynamics beyond broad environment & public views. For that, you should turn to ppl like @jjmacnab, @MiaMBloom, @orensegal, @RachelKleinfeld, @engagedscholar.
You should also read essays by @hakeemjefferson emphasizing the synergy between Republican extremism and white power... https://t.co/u1tJVgP2uZ

And @Davin_Phoenix on the prevalence & effects of racial anger gaps for political action in an unequal nation.
https://t.co/5ujiqQi50w

More from Politics

I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.


Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel

He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:

He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:

He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party
All the challenges to Leader Pelosi are coming from her right, in an apparent effort to make the party even more conservative and bent toward corporate interests.

Hard pass. So long as Leader Pelosi remains the most progressive candidate for Speaker, she can count on my support.


I agree that our party should, and must, evolve our leadership.

But changed leadership should reflect an actual, evolved mission; namely, an increased commitment to the middle + working class electorate that put us here.

Otherwise it’s a just new figure with the same problems.

I hope that we can move swiftly to conclude this discussion about party positions, so that we can spend more time discussing party priorities: voting rights, healthcare, wages, climate change, housing, cannabis legalization, good jobs, etc.
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.

You May Also Like