Militarization of American politics

In the past four years, US President Donald Trump has shown more sympathy for extremist groups, many of them armed, than any other president in recent memory. At the same time, it was reported that his administration lobbied law enforcement agencies to reduce the threat posed by these organizations, allowing non-governmental violence to once again infiltrate mainstream politics, to an unseen degree. since the 1960s and 1970s. Just last month, groups of anti-government extremists were arrested for conspiring to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, following Trump’s demand to “free Michigan” from the restrictions of the ” Covid-19 “(…).

Our research addresses the conditions under which armed groups interfere in electoral politics, drawing on the experiences of other countries and earlier periods in American history. Our comparisons show many avenues for armed participation in politics, however, there are two important ways: when political elites back armed groups, even tacitly; And when governments fail to provide a coherent and unified response to these groups. Both tracks have grown increasingly energetic and disturbing during the Trump presidency. And both, once released, can be difficult to stop again.
Regardless of who wins on November 3, the Trump presidency has opened the door for more electoral violence in the future. If the American political system begins to normalize the presence of armed groups, and if law enforcement agencies fail to deter or address the problem, political aspirants may see future electoral benefit from the development of these organizations. . Some researchers have suggested that the United States could take the path of civil war, but the most likely scenario is intermittent, recurrent, low-level political violence, instigated or empowered by key political leaders, gradually eroding the quality of American democracy. .

Armed parties and groups
Armed groups have been involved in general electoral politics in different ways, often depending on how politicians and armed actors assess the risks and benefits of cooperation. Some armed groups seek to influence the outcome of elections: for example, by openly supporting candidates or openly targeting their opponents. Politicians can also cultivate relationships with armed groups to further their agendas and improve their chances of winning.
Cooperation can be dangerous for both sides, of course. Politicians can face backlash and legal consequences for engaging with non-state violent actors. Armed groups, in turn, may accuse their supporters of selling themselves or participating in polarization if they support the dominant political forces. However, there are still other armed groups that use violence, in ways that do not correspond directly to electoral politics, nor do they serve any particular party, as anarchists do today in the United States. But the potential benefits of cooperation are clear: even if violence is harmful to the population and the political system as a whole, its deployment can generate significant electoral gains for political parties or individual politicians.

The most likely scenario is intermittent, recurrent and low-level political violence

For this reason, many political parties develop direct links with armed groups, and sometimes these parties unequivocally develop their own armed wings. In Bangladesh and the state of West Bengal in India, for example, parties deploy armed branches to advance their electoral interests. The same applies to the Pakistani city of Karachi, since the 1980s. Europe experienced open militarization similar to the policies that prevailed between World War I and World War II, as did many American cities in the 19th century and, for of course, the southern United States in the years after the Civil War. Under Jim Crow, those with direct ties to the Democratic Party and state governments committed acts of violence against African Americans …

Armed groups in the United States
Armed groups operating in the United States have a wide range of objectives. Some are primarily anti-government, making it difficult for them to participate meaningfully in mainstream politics. Others, however, are mainly focused on fighting what they see as a rapid expansion of state power, and that of the left in particular. Under Trump, these groups have increasingly directed their anger at Democratic rulers and other political figures who oppose their racist views of the American state and nation …
Before Trump’s 2016 election, these groups operated primarily on the political fringes and could have awaited condemnation from most top politicians. But the president’s speech legitimized their agendas. By asking the “Proud Boys” to “step aside” and by refusing to denounce the “unite the right” rally in Charlottesville in 2017, Trump sowed positive ambiguity about the position of far-right groups in the political arena. Even when he condemned those groups, his comments were often late, conditional, or entangled with criticism of his opponents.
But the rhetorical environment is not the only one that has changed in the last four years. The Trump administration has consistently lobbied the US Department of Homeland Security to downplay the threat posed by the far-right and create a more tolerant environment for those groups to operate. In the US law enforcement system, which is fragmented, politically flexible, and decentralized, local authorities are often autonomous, helping them to ignore or tolerate the activities of armed groups if they so choose. A local mayor in Michigan, the platform, with two militiamen accused of conspiring to kidnap Whitmer (…).

Way forward
There is an open question as to whether the gains made by armed groups in the United States can be reversed. Even if the election turns out to be decisive and free of violence, Trump’s strategies and the permissive environment he has created could be emulated by other politicians. Unless there is a clear political cost to Trump’s strategy, his relative electoral success may make the adoption of armed groups an attractive tactic in the future …
The best chance to oppose a further invasion of armed groups into the American political scene is a united denial of electoral violence by high-level politicians from across the political spectrum, from left-wing Democrats to Trump-supporting Republicans. US law enforcement agencies, at the federal and local levels, should resume their impartial operations against far-right extremists, but not treat them differently from other extremists. Future media reports on right-wing armed groups can help shape public opinion in a positive way …
While it will be difficult to undo the gains made by right-wing militant groups during Trump’s lenient years, the next administration has the opportunity and the tools to combat them. Coordinated, partisan action can free American democracy from the influence of these groups.

(Foreign Relations – Ayla Matanoke
Wobble Stanland)

Subscribe to «News» on YouTube here