Giving Compass
  • Sign In
  • About Us
    About Giving Compass How We Choose Content and Organizations Annual Reflections Our Newsletter
  • Getting Started
  • Learn About Issues
    Topic Guides
    Animal Welfare COVID-19 Criminal Justice Democracy Disaster Relief Education Environment Health Homelessness Immigrants and Refugees Racial Equity Women and Girls
    Curated Articles
    Partner Collections Giving Compass Selections See All Articles
  • Give to Causes
    Issue Funds & Intermediaries Projects Nonprofits
  • Get Involved
    Philanthropy Resource Directory Events Volunteer Opportunities
  • Partner With Us
    Nonprofits Authors Use Our Content Services Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
Sign Up
  • Get the Newsletter
  • Sign In

What Political Violence in America Means for the Future

The Conversation Jan 7, 2021
This article is deemed a must-read by one or more of our expert collaborators.
Click here for more.
What Political Violence in America Means for the Future Giving Compass
  •  Share
  •  Save
Share

Giving Compass' Take:

• Naomi Schalit interviews Ore Koren about the cause and consequences of the political violence that took place on Capitol Hill on Jan. 6, 2021.

• Koren sites misinformation as the cause of this violence and warns that future violence will be easier now that this norm has been breached. What role can funders play in addressing misinformation to prevent further violence?

• Read about understanding and fighting truth decay.


Editor’s note: Ore Koren is a scholar of civil conflict and political violence. Before the November 2020 election, he wrote a story for The Conversation about the likelihood of election-related violence in the U.S. So we went back to him on Wednesday, while what some are calling an insurrection unfolded at the U.S. Capitol, to ask him for some perspective on the event. This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.

Q: You’re a scholar of political violence. What were you thinking as you watched what’s happened at the U.S. Capitol?

Koren: First of all, I felt pretty stunned. I think that’s a natural response to this. This is a new situation; it shows the power of misinformation and stuff that we’re not really good at dealing with.

My research focuses on organized political violence, which often happens in places where the state does not have much power to prevent violence, where the economy is underdeveloped, where democratic institutions are weak, and where there is a history of organized violence. And usually when we see events at this magnitude, they are accompanied by many casualties, which thankfully was not the case today.

What happened at the Capitol, from what I can tell, was a messy riot where people lashed out at the heart of American democracy, but it remains unclear how organized an effort this was.

Still, it is kind of shocking. We have the biggest economy in the world. Based on what we see in the research, weak economic performance is a strong predictor of organized political violence. The people marching on the Capitol have much more to lose than to gain from this, and to me that’s puzzling.

With an incumbent who has been advocating for a strong law-and-order agenda, many people did not expect this. In a country with a strong domestic security apparatus, militias and vigilantes hurt rather than help in promoting the rule of law.

What separates the U.S. and other advanced and militarily capable democracies from other countries where deadly election violence happens is the ability to wage an effective state response and very quickly implement the rule of law, cracking down on both the perpetrators and any groups they might be affiliated with.

One example of a very effective state response was in Michigan, where the militias plotting to kidnap the state’s governor were quickly apprehended by federal authorities.

Q: How does this compare with political violence in countries you’ve studied?

Koren: Compared to other countries, I’m hoping it won’t get to that threshold of being more extreme. A lot of violence actually happens when a party refuses to give away power or a party blames the other for cheating. Well, that’s kind of what we saw happening here, right, one party was blaming the other for cheating. Only here, we had lots of evidence to the contrary, and we had legal and institutional ways of verifying any cheating or lack thereof.

In the U.S., most of the election challenges happened through formal legal channels. The main problem in places where we see violence happen is because they don’t have these kinds of institutions to deal with this, courts, all those things that our legal system can handle. But in countries where such institutions are weak, the state can’t handle that, and can’t address election challenges through a peaceful process. In this case, we see many political leaders, and not only angry citizens, saying those political institutions are not valid.

Also, in other countries, those engaging in such violence are often pro-government militias, but these are not pro-government militias we’re seeing here; as we saw today, they are actively opposing the police.

Q: But what you’ve got in the U.S. is a group of people who actually don’t believe that those institutions handled this, that it’s all corrupt, that it’s all fake and not real and cheating and plots happened. And we’ve had a president saying that.

Koren: Well, you have the president saying he was cheated, but going through the legal channels. The president didn’t just go and say, “OK, let’s go charge the Capitol,” although Wednesday morning’s speech could definitely be interpreted as instigating something like this. Until now, his rhetoric could be considered more about mobilizing support, and trying to create enough reasonable doubt that could then be used to pressure the results through formal channels.

But we do have a very unpredictable incumbent pushing the legal envelope during the worst pandemic in a century. What we’re seeing today, I think, has a lot more to do with his unpredictability and things we can’t account for in models we use to study political violence events. It’s been more than two months since the election and we didn’t see any serious violence until now, but as the legal options closed, the situation became more problematic. We don’t often see election-related violence months after an election.

Q: What do you think this means for the stability of the U.S. government or U.S. elections?

Koren: I’m not an election expert, but it’s a bad precedent. We don’t have a recent history of election violence and, now we can say we do have it, and that’s not a good thing.

What hugely contributed to all of this is misinformation. People mobilized based on a conspiracy with no evidence. I think this is a major problem that has to be addressed – I don’t know how. But it is really crucial to address the underlying problem – that people believe in what they feel is real, not what is real.

Once you engage in political violence, it becomes easier to do it again. But if there’s an effective state response to these events, then it can help strengthen those institutions.

So, I think a lot of people will be saying, look, this is all going to have long-term negative implications. But there’s also a possibility that this can actually help in the long run by showing the grave consequences of manipulating democratic institutions for political gain. Again, it depends on how the state and politicians and security and everybody responds to this. But having a history of political violence is a pretty strong predictor of future violence.

I think it’s really important for federal authorities to show their ability to tackle this. When it comes down to it, the government must show that it can protect American democracy, through force if necessary.

Naomi Schalit, Senior Editor, Politics + Society, The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The Conversation is a nonprofit news source dedicated to spreading ideas and expertise from academia into the public discourse.

  •  Share
  •  Save
Share

Since you are interested in Civil Society, have you read these selections from Giving Compass related to impact giving and Civil Society?

  • This article is deemed a must-read by one or more of our expert collaborators.
    Click here for more.
    Supporting Nonprofit Leaders of Color This Election Year and Beyond

    Research has shown that people of color-led nonprofits receive fewer donations than white-led organizations, even if they focus on the same work. Furthermore, leaders of color are more likely to report they lack access to, and face challenges securing, financial support from a variety of funding sources, compared to white leaders, according to a study by the Building Movement Project. Funding people of color-led nonprofits not only increases equity in philanthropy, but also closes outcome gaps between people of color and others, as the best solutions to problems come from those most affected by them. These past few months, the country has faced a reckoning on how systemic racism permeates all aspects of life for BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) communities and individuals. Philanthropy is not spared. At a moment when all eyes are on racial inequities and how they’re being addressed, now is a time to intentionally diversify your charitable giving and support nonprofits led by people of color for the long term. But first, what do these discrepancies in funding look like and why do they happen? According to the Building Movement Project’s brief, Nonprofit Executives and the Racial Leadership Gap: A Race to Lead, 63% of leaders of color reported that they lack access to individual donors compared to 49% of white leaders. 41% of nonprofits led by people of color reported that foundation grants were their main source of funding, with 28% of white leaders reporting they receive foundation dollars, showing that the latter benefit from a more diverse funding pool while the former rely heavily on one source. What causes discrepancies like these? Stanford Social Innovation Review found four consistencies in the obstacles that nonprofit leaders of color face when it comes to fundraising: Getting connected: According to Blackbaud’s Diversity in Giving report, nearly 75% of US donors in 2015 were white. Leaders of color tend to lack access to these communities of philanthropists, especially since, according to the American Values Survey, 75% of white people’s social networks look like them. Building rapport: Microaggressions from donors happen more often than we think and, even when unintended, those implicit biases are dangerous as they place an emotional burden on nonprofit leaders, making it difficult to build a relationship with a potential funder. Securing support: Differences in backgrounds and approaches can result in a funder not supporting an organization led by a person of color, especially since the Building Movement Project found that 49% of leaders of color led an organization focused on issues related to specific racial, ethnic or immigrant communities, a demographic whose challenges white donors and foundations may not have a grasp on. Sustaining relationships: In order to sustain a strong relationship, the nonprofit and the funder must feel like true partners in their cause, but often the obstacles listed above prohibit an ongoing relationship from occurring. Many organizations led by people of color are working to strengthen our democracy and ensure all voices are heard by working on the ground in communities across the country. They’re also facing the added challenge of racial bias and need donors who trust their approach to advance change. To diversify your giving, be intentional about funding nonprofits led by people of color and recognize they may face unnecessary obstacles to funding. A philanthropy advising service like Goodnation, which recommends nonprofits based on donors’ values and interests, can help you find impactful nonprofits that are meaningful to you. In the meantime, consider these organizations -- led by people of color who are working in communities most affected by inequities -- which are all part of the One for Democracy Fund, a campaign focused on a free and fair election for all: Forward Justice is a nonpartisan law, policy and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social and economic justice in the South. They’re providing wrap-around voter protection including know your rights training and voter education campaigns, and rapid-response support. In the wake of COVID-19, Forward Justice’s election protection work has included emergency advocacy to enact COVID-19 voter-friendly measures necessary to preserve the right to vote in 2020. Florida Immigrant Coalition is a statewide coalition of organizations working for the fair treatment of all people, including immigrants. They conduct targeted voter registration and education work to empower new citizens to exercise their right to vote. Blueprint NC is a network of 41 non-profit, non-partisan organizations working together across issues and racial lines to advance equity and social justice in North Carolina. Blueprint has been leading the statewide effort to register over 239,000 voters for the 2020 election, with the goal of closing the voter registration gap between people of color and white voters by 2022. Blueprint has managed to quickly pivot to shift canvassing online, engage heavily in advocacy at the state level and create a fund to support those directly impacted by the virus. Or, support the One for Democracy Fund, which includes all of the above groups and deploys resources based on constantly updated information about where the needs are greatest.


Looking for a way to get involved?

A good way to complement your interest in Civil Society is to connect with others. Check out these events, galas, conferences or volunteering opportunities related to Civil Society.

Loading...
Learn More

Are you ready to give?

If you are ready to take action and invest in causes for Civil Society, check out these Giving Funds, Charitable Organizations and Projects related to Civil Society.

Loading...
Learn More
Connect

Loading...

Loading...

Learn More
Take Action

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Learn More
More from
Giving Compass
  • This article is deemed a must-read by one or more of our expert collaborators.
    Click here for more.
    Transitioning from COVID-19 Relief to Long-term Resilience
  • This article is deemed a must-read by one or more of our expert collaborators.
    Click here for more.
    A Discussion of the Complex Relationship Between Democracy and Philanthropy [Audio]
  • This article is deemed a must-read by one or more of our expert collaborators.
    Click here for more.
    How Activists in New York Successfully Shut Down Key Pipeline Projects
Follow Us
Newsletter

Become a newsletter subscriber to stay up-to-date on the latest Giving Compass news.

About Us
  • About Giving Compass
  • In The News
  • Contact Us
  • Content at Giving Compass
  • Partner With Us
Trending Issues
  • Environment
  • Homelessness
  • STEM Education
  • Equal Pay Act
  • Gender Equality

Copyright © 2021, Giving Compass, LLC

•
  • Privacy Policy
  • User Agreement

Sign in

Your personal information is confidential at Giving Compass. For more information, please visit our privacy policy. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use.