The rise and justification of political violence

There is no denying that political violence is on the rise in North America. The causes of our society's worsening polarization are complex, as social phenomena often are. However, there is a troubling and growing tendency to view non-violent acts as violence. This makes violence easier to justify as a response to non-violence. Violence, polarization, and radicalization, all contribute to one another, and has produced a vicious cycle of political animosity.

The foundations of the liberal-conservative divide and the justification of political violence

In the mind of the classical conservative, societal shifts can have unforeseen consequences, and therefore creates chaos. Individuals tend to become more conservative as they age because, among other factors, they witness more unintended chaos and place a higher mental emphasis on the fragility of our society. This is a reasonable position because the countless interactions between individuals influence those individuals in both obvious and subtle ways. Progressives are more likely to view actions as being violent or quasi-violent than conservatives, because they are less willing to trade-off fairness and harm prevention in favour of order and risk aversion.This is a reasonable position because if society can do more to foster fairness and harm prevention but chooses not to, society as a whole is effectively causing the unfairness and harm. In many cases, this unfairness and harm can look very analogous to violence on the part of society to those that are most affected.Let’s say that you think that gun control will do nothing to prevent gun violence. It should still not be difficult to see why those that believe the opposite, would see pro-gun anti-regulation activists as creating (or at least preventing solutions for) gun violence.In this view, when proponents of conservative views express those views, they are affecting or trying to affect society to move further away from fairness and harm reduction, and are therefore the cause of what is seen as analogous to violence. This is where a reasonable view leads to an unreasonable conclusion. This conclusion is that, since violence justifies violence in return, those who express conservative views should rightfully be met with violence. While this conclusion is not common, it is quickly becoming more so.This unreasonable conclusion exists on the conservative side of the spectrum as well. Far-right activists face the temptation to view threats to societal order as also analogous to violence, in a very similar way as is seen on the far-left. It is undeniable that some, if not many, fall into that temptation.

Asymmetry in the perceptions of violence and its causes

While political violence is not a new phenomenon, individuals are more exposed to opposing radicals than during previous times of political polarization. If Google and Facebook know you are a conservative, you will see left-wing extremists express ridiculous views and backing it up with violence. If the algorithms detect that you are a liberal, you will see the same from right-wing extremists. This is because we all view these kinds of posts as threats to our society, and therefore elicit the kinds of responses that provide positive feedback to self-learning algorithms.This phenomenon is unfortunately not symmetrical. The reason is not that conservatives are morally superior to liberals or vice versa. It is because harm to groups of individuals is more apparent than the potential for unforeseen consequences of societal shifts leading to chaos. After all, “unforeseen consequences” are not obvious by definition. (This might only be true during times of relative stability.)This means that, all else being equal, violence in furtherance of specific harm prevention is easier to sympathize with (whether or not we think it is justified) than violence in furtherance of the less visible goal of maintaining social order. Furthermore, the immorality of the latter type of violence is more obvious, since it tends to create more direct harm to a more identifiable individual or group.Another offshoot of that reason is that individuals are more reluctant to publicly condemn left-wing violence, out of fear that they will be perceived as (a) unsympathetic to the progressive cause of the perpetrator, and/or (b) defending the views of the victim, which can often be unpalatable.

The results

Events of the last few years have provided numerous examples of how these causes translate into effects.We saw examples of right-wing violence most obviously in the form of pizzagate. There was also the man who stabbed three men who came to the defence of two women wearing hijabs being subjected to racial harassment. Another man shot two legal immigrants, accusing them of being in the US illegally based on their appearance. Police also arrested a man for threatening to carry out a shooting on CNN headquarters. All of these instances happened within the last two years.We saw examples of left-wing violence as well. A man was arrested after being shot several times by police, after he stormed one of Trump’s golf clubs and began shooting at the ceiling while yelling “anti-Trump rhetoric” and injured an officer. Another man shot up a charity baseball game, targeting Republican legislators. One Republican senator received threats in response to the Kavanaugh confirmation vote, in the form of a text sent to his wife with a graphic video of a beheading and the names and addresses of his family members. There was the man who was charged for sending letters laced with ricin, a highly potent biological toxin, to Trump and others. In San Franscisco, trans activists physically attacked lesbian participants of that city’s dyke march. Again, all of these instances happened within two years.Just this Thursday, there was even an old white male who touched a far-right female activist without her consent, before saying that he would be justified in throwing her to the ground and raping her.Despite our much smaller population, there are examples from this side of the border as well, the most obvious being the 2017 Quebec City mosque shooting. There was also a racially motivated attack in Mississauga earlier this year. The Canadian right has also resorted to American-style tactics, like when demonstrators appeared at the personal home of Ontario’s then-premier Kathleen Wynne.On the left, we have seen violent activists on campus, a physical attack on a far-right activist that was subsequently downplayed by media, and the guy who (on more than one different occasion) assaulted women for being anti-abortion. Even members of our team have received threats saying that personal information was being used to monitor them.

So what is to be done?

Any movement consisting of enough individuals will be the source of some violent incidents. Although certain groups create systematically more violence than others, it would be unfair to generalize either side of the political spectrum in this way.I dare say that perhaps, the justification of political violence may be just as dangerous as the violence itself.Our society, very rightfully so, has no tolerance for right-wing violence. We have no problem publicly condemning such acts, regardless of our opinions of the victim. Our society has an equivalent obligation to remain vigilant in condemning left-wing violence as well, even where the victims are decidedly loathsome. Violence begets violence. So, as difficult as it is, we must side with those we hate where the red line is crossed.