Mapping Violent Hostility, Its Causes, & the Consequences for Democracy.
Nathan P. Kalmoe & Lilliana Mason
Status: manuscript in production with University of Chicago Press (Early 2022 pub).
Political violence is rising in the United States, alarming citizens and leaders alike and threatening the prospects for American democracy. At the same time, Republicans and Democrats are newly divided along racial and ethnic lines that rooted massive bloodshed and the collapse of democracy in our nation’s past, with a controlling faction of the Republican Party now seeking to maintain hegemonic power for traditionally dominant social groups, seemingly at any cost.
Our book makes sense of the contentious present and where we could be going with a timely groundbreaking study of radicalism among ordinary American partisans, including demonization, violent political attitudes, and aggressive behaviors. Just how extreme have partisans in the public become? What drives their radicalism? And what role do they play in advancing or undermining democracy?
We draw on history and political science to put our present partisan fractiousness in context and to explain broad patterns of political and social change we now see. Our evidences includes more than a dozen new nationally-representative surveys and experiments motivated by psychological theories of identity, group conflict, and aggression. This work upends conventional views of American political behavior by showing that ordinary partisanship is far more dangerous than pundits and scholars have recognized.
Radical views create environments that encourage extreme action by a few, and they serve as preconditions for those who do act. The first part of the book presents survey evidence on the scope of the problem: violent views, aggressive behaviors, who these radical partisans are, and trends over time.
The latter half of the book identifies the conditions that partisans say justify violence and tests how elections, political violence, and messages from leaders enflame or pacify radical partisan views. We conclude by reflecting on the future of radical partisanship in the U.S., including its opportunities for advancing democracy. While partisans in each party hold similarly radical views, one side is moving toward multiracial democracy while the other is violently opposed to it, and that makes all the moral difference.
Our book is ultimately a vital warning that we face immense threats, but it is not a forecast of inevitable doom. Partisanship can go to very dark places that most Americans have not yet recognized. But some radicalism is also essential to advance democracy. Ultimately, leaders and ordinary citizens will determine which path we go down. Identifying radical threats (and democratic opportunities) is the first essential step in making an American politics that lives up to its founding promises.
Ch. 1: Recognizing Partisan Extremes
Ch. 2: Radical Historical Roots
Ch. 3: Radical Partisan Psychology
Part I: Identifying Radical Partisans
Ch. 4: The Scope of Radicalism
Ch. 5: Trends: Stumbling Toward a Breakdown
Ch. 6: Who are the Radical Partisans?
Part II: Radical Behaviors, Conditions, & Events
Ch. 7: From Radical Views to Aggressive Behavior
Ch. 8: Historical Precedents & Reasons for Violence
Ch. 9: Reactions to Elections, & Violence
Part III: Communicating Radicalism
Ch. 10: Messages that Fan the Flames & Douse the Fire
Conclusion: The Future of Radical Partisanship
APSA 2018: Lethal Mass Partisanship.
APSA 2019: Election Distrust & the Orthogonality of Radical Partisanship.
CCES 2019: Campaign Violence: A Natural Experiment.
Carnegie Endowment for Int’l Peace 2019: Violent American Partisanship
Cornell Workshop on Democratic Resilience 2019: Roots, Risks, & Rewards of Polarization
Society for Affective Sciences 2020: Emotions in Violent Partisanship
2020 CCES Oct/Nov Panel – observational & message experiment
Oct 2020 YouGov Omnibus (Democracy Fund) – observational (violence & MD items)
Sept 2020 Voter Study Group – observational (violence items)
June & Sept 2020 UCLA/Nationscape surveys – observational
2020 Student Study – noise blast behavioral aggression test
2020 Lucid Study – rationales for political violence
2019 Voter Study Group survey – observational (4 violence items)
2019-20 3-wave YouGov panel – observational & experiments
2019 Qualtrics – 3 big message experiments
2018 CCES Oct/Nov panel – observational, natural experiment, experiments
2018 GQR/Catalist/Nat’l Consortium (Oct) – observational (moral disengagement items)
2018 Student Study (Spring) – hot sauce behavioral aggression test
2018 Nielsen/Critical Issues (May) – observational (all but violence items)
2017 CCES (Nov-Dec) – observational & experiments
2010 GfK (Aug) – observational & experiments
1997 Pew (Nov) – observational
LSU’s Manship School of Mass Communication (Professorships: Tom Jarreau Hardin, Howard & Nantelle Mitchiner Gittinger)
University of Maryland’s Dept. of Political Science
Facebook Integrity Research Grant
Thanks to ANES, GQR, Voter Study Group, & Pew for sharing their public & private data with us.