How Can We Prevent or Deter Election Related Violence in 2024? - Talking Feds

[Rhiannon12866]

Donald Trump is again withholding assurances about accepting the results of the upcoming election. His implicit threats are only one of the many factors that pose the risk of election-related violence over the next 8 months. Harry talks with Jacob Ware, a research fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, about his white paper, “Preventing U.S. Election Violence in 2024.”

Ware breaks down the landscape of potential election violence according to the calendar—pre-election (including political conventions), election (including early and absentee voting), and post-election. He identifies warning signs, beginning with divisive political rhetoric from candidates. Finally, he prescribes a series of actions to deter domestic terrorism as well as mitigation strategies to dampen the impact of potential terrorist violence.

[rampartc]

1. this is good stuff.

this guy has been in their online sewers and seems to understand them pretty well. this is what i have been seeing in the news, but this guy connects the dots.

1. leaderless resistance. i was impressed by the way we did this at occupy, and thought maybe this would be impossible in their hierarchal structures. they haven't really pulled it off (the mid level leaders were convicted of seditious conspiracy) but have decentralized enough that everyone can know trump is the boss without being able to prove it.

2. is his solution (adopt a maga and sing kumbaya?) practical?

"these rugged individualists always run in packs."

[Rhiannon12866]

2. I thought he was very good as well - He should share his knowledge with Capitol Police.

[wnylib]

4. I think that one of his best suggestions is to count and release the results of mail ballots first

before releasing machine ballot totals. Maybe that could be done by setting a results day for a week after the elections instead of hour by hour coverage. Unfortunately, media would object and claim the right to results access immediately since results coverage is a big media deal. But, releasing both mail and machine totals together would cut back on the conspiracy crap about mail ballots being brought in to change the results.

Regarding the kumbaya solution, I think I get his point. It's something that I've been saying here for a while. It's not possible to discuss facts and logic with committed MAGAs. You can get farther with them by addressing feelings than logic or facts. They are angry or fearful about something in their lives. That anger and fear drive them into MAGA hate rhetoric. Find out what makes them feel angry, fearful, or hurt.

Example: I used to work with a woman who was staunchly anti abortion. Her arguments were angry so I asked why abortion made her so angry. She told me about her own unwanted pregnancy and the trouble she had finding a clinic that would do an abortion. She didn't have money for it and was angry that "leftists" were all talk and no action because they didn't help her with funding. When her baby was born, she gave it to her sister to raise. So, if she was "forced" to have her baby because no one helped her, then why should any one else get help that she didn't have?

I sympathized with her on how difficult it must have been over a series of conversations about it. When she felt that her feelings were heard and validated, she was calmer. I got her to agree that it was not the fault of other women seeking abortions that she had not been able to get one. It was not even the fault of "leftists" that they had no means to provide funding. It's anti abortionists who oppose Medicaid coverage for it. With her anger diminished, she was more open to clear thinking. I suggested that she could use her hurt and understanding to help other women as an advocate. She didn't go that far, but she did stop arguing against abortion and agreed that it should be available for women who choose it. Her spiteful opposition to it melted.

Sometimes, though not always, getting to the emotional roots of the political opposition helps to defuse it.

[Think. Again.]

3. Bookmarking for reference.

[SWBTATTReg]

5. Get rid of tRUMP via not allowing him to run anymore, especially since he created the first wave of violence, and

he's never paid for it.

[wnylib]

6. Looks like that ship already sailed...and sank.

I agree that he should not be eligible. He could have been eliminated as a candidate if he'd been convicted of his second impeachment. The SC has since ruled against removing him from ballots.

Even before he was a candidate, he was able to control the House by making public statements that would turn MAGAs against House members who did not toe the MAGA line. They feared that their districts would vote against them next time if Trump told them to. Without MAGA party control of the Senate, he had less control of the entire chamber, but he could still try to defeat bipartisan bills there by causing MAGA Senators to vote in a united party line.

In other words, he's a menace in or out of office, even when not a candidate or office holder. Now even court cases can't hold him to accountability on documents because of his appointments made while in office.

Vote him out, sure. Give Biden a solid Dem majority in Congress, yes. But I'm afraid that getting Trump out of political influence might depend on his health, or lack of it.

[SWBTATTReg]

7. So, in getting back to my response on stopping violence, and my answer to it, you're saying in effect that

there's no way to stop it, w/ tRUMP.

[wnylib]

8. Don't put words into my mouth. I am saying what many others on DU are saying, that

in or out of office Trump will always be a threat to democracy and a threat to peaceful politics until he is physically too incapacitated to function at all, or dies, whichever comes first.

Therefore, we must always be vigilant and not become complacent about the threat that he and his acolytes present, even if he loses in November.

We know that he will not accept losing the vote. He didn't in 2020 and he has already indicated that he won't accept a loss this year either.

Trump is not our only threat. He is the public face of a movement with many followers in politics and everyday life. When he's gone, they will not stop. That is not a defeatist view. It is the reality of standing by democracy.

In his inaugural address, JFK said that every generation is called upon to preserve liberty and democracy. Rachel Maddow has shown in her podcast, Ultra, how pervasive fascism was in the US in the 1930s. My parents' generation defeated fascism militarily abroad in the 1940s. But fascism did not die out in the US, or in Europe either. It only went dormant to bide its time before rising again.

Our vote is absolutely essential in this election. But, in addition to voting, we need to reverse the "culture war" that the far right initiated. Promote our Democratic values, both capital D and small "d" in daily life, in local grass roots politics.

This quote has been attributed to Ben Franklin, but whether he said it or someone else, it is true and must be remembered. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance "