Government responsiveness, political violence, and the ’60s – Vox

This post is part of Mischiefs of Faction, an independent political science blog featuring reflections on the party system.

Wednesdays shooting during a congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia, was a disturbing incidence of political violence. Julia Azari wrote an important post Thursday explaining the possible relationship between political violence and a lack of government responsiveness. I wanted to comment a bit on this and note that this relationship isnt necessarily a very clear one.

Drawing on work by Nathan Kalmoe and Lilliana Mason, Azari noted that individuals who lack faith in democratic systems are more likely to say they favor violence to solve political problems. The logical extension would be that if more Americans feel that their government isnt working for them and isnt responsive to their needs, more Americans will find violence an acceptable alternative to democracy. If this is whats going on, it is indeed a deeply disturbing trend.

But its important to think back to what was perhaps the most politically violent decade in modern American history the 1960s. This saw the assassinations of John Kennedy and Medgar Evers (1963), Malcolm X (1965), American Nazi Party leader George Lincoln Rockwell (1967), and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. (1968). Its difficult for those who didnt live through that era to understand how much violence had become an ingrained part of the political system.

The most politically violent era was also the era in which people considered their government most responsive to them

But was this turbulent era also a time when Americans had lost faith in the political process? The American National Election Studies has been collecting an index of questions on democratic responsiveness since 1964. This index includes questions on whether people believe the government cares what they think and whether they have a say in governmental decisions. The chart below shows the average level of this index since 1964.

As the chart shows, the 1960s were actually a high point in peoples faith in their government. The most politically violent era was also the era in which people considered their government most responsive to them. There may, in fact, be little relationship between faith in government and incidences of political violence.

Now, there are obviously a lot of other factors to consider. The 1960s are considered violent in large part because there were many successful assassination attempts. There were assassination attempts on every president from Nixon to Obama; only Reagan was actually harmed. George Wallace was shot in 1972 but survived. Its hard to know how many assassinations have been thwarted through improvements in the way the Secret Service protects presidents and candidates.

Its also important to note, as Azari does, that responsiveness itself has changed form over the years. Individual Americans may have enjoyed more direct responsiveness from their elected officials back in the 60s, which was during a period of weak political parties. Today, in a very polarized era, responsiveness exists more through the parties themselves. That is, the average Democrat is better represented by the Democratic Party than she was a few decades ago in terms of policy, but thats of little satisfaction to her if that party is out of power. People today can be more confident theyll get what they want when their party is in power, but that leaves a narrow minority of voters intensely frustrated with the government at any given time.

We should also keep in mind that the actions of those violent individuals who actually attack government officials dont necessarily speak to larger societal trends or beliefs. There are obviously a great many people angry at national leaders right now, and theres a great deal of heated rhetoric fanning that anger. Its an incredibly small percentage of those people who actually become violent. Indeed, as Nancy Leong suggests at the Washington Post, a past history of violence, especially violence against women, is a far better predictor of future violent behavior than extreme political beliefs are.

Our nations history is rife with both heated rhetoric and political violence, and an attack on our elected officials, no less a ranking congressional leader, is an assault on representative democracy that must be taken very seriously. But its not obvious that this tragedy portends a rising number of such events.

Excerpt from:

Government responsiveness, political violence, and the ’60s – Vox

Related Post

June 16, 2017   Posted in: George Lincoln Rockwell |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."