Politische Wut befeuert die Unterstützung von Gewalt vor allem dann, wenn Wähler das Gefühl haben, vom System ignoriert zu werden. Wenn die Menschen glauben, dass die Regierung reagiert, fungiert dies als Puffer gegen die Befürwortung politischer Gewalt. An der Studie nahmen sowohl Demokraten als auch Republikaner während der US-Präsidentschaftswahl 2024 teil.
Political anger fuels support for violence mainly when voters feel ignored by the system
23 Kommentare
**Political anger fuels support for violence mainly when voters feel ignored by the system**
A recent study published in [*Political Psychology*](https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.70144)suggests that how political anger influences a person’s support for violence depends heavily on whether they believe the political system actually listens to them. Researchers found that intense anger tends to fuel support for undemocratic practices only when people feel their voices do not matter to politicians. When people believe the government is responsive, this sense of political power acts as a buffer against endorsing political violence.
The researchers analyzed data from a national survey of 1,713 adult citizens in the United States. They collected this data in a rolling format over an eight week period, starting five weeks before the November 2024 presidential election and ending three weeks after.
The participants represented a nearly even split between individuals identifying as Democrats and Republicans, alongside a smaller percentage of Independents. The sample was balanced by gender and included a wide age range from 18 to 97 years old. The researchers also gathered a sample that reflected various racial and ethnic backgrounds in the United States.
“Our findings suggest that when people are angry but also believe they can make a difference, through voting, civic engagement, community action, or other democratic means, anger is less likely to be associated with support for harmful or undemocratic behaviors,” Turner said. “When people are angry and feel powerless, however, that combination may create conditions where support for more extreme responses becomes more likely.”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pops.70144
Is this a surprise to anyone?
This is the kind of thing that I feel like lunatics would point to as a justification of their horrible acts. “Well if you just listened to me I wouldn’t have killed all those bystanders”
The kind of people who think violence is the answer are the kind of people who demand insane things from the government.
Im glad they did the study to put it into numbers, but I feel like this was pretty well understood, already.
Unfortunate then that American voters are ignored by the system, and as such are quite likely to feel as if we are.
MLK Jr:
> „Now I wanted to say something about the fact that we have lived over these last two or three summers with agony and we have seen our cities going up in flames. And I would be the first to say that I am still committed to militant, powerful, massive, non-violence as the most potent weapon in grappling with the problem from a direct action point of view. I’m absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results. But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that ***a riot is the language of the unheard***. And what is it America has failed to hear?“
They forgot to mention the part where they feel an impending existential threat is being projected from said government
What if the major difference between rank and file liberals vs conservatives is basically that one thinks their society no longer includes them in the way they thought it should/would (and did in the past), vs the other that thinks their society doesn’t include them (and never has) but that it should.
And most of the rest is:
– historical trauma
– all of us mistaking our cultural Subjectivity for objective „reality“
– and a warped framing that for one group to do better, the other has to suffer – mostly pushed by folks trying to make sure nothing changes because, right now, everything works exactly how it should for *them*.
If your voice isn’t being heard, you make it heard.
This is one of the traditional arguments in favor of elected government.
Well, it’s a fact that the U.S. political system ignores most people:
[Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens | Perspectives on Politics | Cambridge Core](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B)
>When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the **average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy**.
Given that, I think it’s amazing how little political anger there is in the United States.
Considering how much Americans see themselves as great revolutionaries and rebellious freedom fighters, they seem completely incapable of genuine protest, don’t they? And no, NO Kings wasn’t a protest; it was a festival parade for virtue signaling, 100% organized and controlled by the ruling capitalist class of the United States.
This study basically proves the theory of the “four boxes” of political change:
– the soap box, where you argue for change.
– the ballot box, where you vote for change.
– the jury box, where you sue for change.
– the ammo box, when the other three are no longer viable.
It is shameful that the system has failed people so thoroughly that they feel the violence is acceptable.
Pretty much anyone, when they get challenged on why they did something messed up: they made me do it.
This kind of study is not helpful.
Ballot box > Jury box > Ammo box
„Violence“ here specifically refers to the rogue violence of individuals. Violence done by the state is not considered.
When you define „violence“ that way, the inevitable result is that „violence“ becomes the exclusive province of groups too small or disenfranchised to control the state. States are extremely well-adapted for committing violence, much more so than random yahoos. If a group that wanted violence *did* have the ability to gain control of the state, they’d use it to do the violence instead, and that violence would instantly disappear as far as this study is concerned. It’s a bit like if you redefined „car“ to specifically mean „rusted 1990s Honda“ and then published a study declaring that only poor people and high school students drive cars.
I understand that it’s good to do studies to verify this sort of thing, but also, this was pretty obvious
This study could’ve saved time and money by just reading a history book…
“Let them eat cake” as a concept of how people not feeling heard by their government leads to political violence, is not some new and unknown avenue of inquiry, in fact it may be one of the most studied subjects of the last 270 years.
Just because the subjects are 21st century democrats and republicans doesn’t change the picture, just the clothes they are wearing.
I’m gonna go ahead and say that anger over bigotry and genocide is a lot more defensible than anger in support of bigotry and genocide. „Both sides“ are not equally bad.
No taxation without representation
In some ways, it’s just the four boxes of liberty at work.
The theory goes, there are four routes to „solving“ social disputes/obtaining justice in modern societies: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. They are to be used in that order, because the consequences for society and human life get worse with each one. I put „solving“ in quotes because you could argue that the last box doesn’t really solve anything.
Right now, at least, you have a large number of people in American society feeling as if social conflicts/injustices are going unaddressed in meaningful ways. I’ll let you fill in the blanks as to what those are, but it’s not always people who want the US to be like it was in 1955 who are arming themselves. An increasing number of people who are liberal or otherwise practice left-of-center politics, and people who are of historically-oppressed groups, are also starting to arm themselves.
In some ways, you could see this as preparing for political violence.
Ultimately, if you start meaningfully solving social conflicts and injustices with the first three boxes, you can avoid the fourth.
It’s important to point out that there is another factor at play. In effectively most of the industrial revolution, the idea of getting people money so they can spend it has been pretty core. As such, the average laborer may not have a voice on their own, but via their combined buying power, could really force issues.
The buying power of the bottom 90% is so much smaller than the top 10%, the average person really doesn’t matter anymore in any meaningful way. They are economically unimportant, even combined. The era of walmarts and dollar stores is at an end. It’s now the era of designer luxury products catering to the top 10%.
Edit: Probably should cite that: [https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/](https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/)
I wish I was ignored.
Pitchforks and torches democracy will always exist. Because it works and is accessible to all. And because there will always be abusive and predatory humans that corrupt any system we create.