Current Political Violence In The USA

 

One last political post before the election.  I have been working on a graphic on the political violence scenario and how it has drastically changed in the past 8 years. Part of the issue with aggression and violence is that it is generally very difficult for most people to talk about. They lack the vocabulary and for a long time there was the suggestion that it may have been the fault of the victim.  It took far too long to recognize that this was a dynamic in domestic violence situations and modernize those laws to set limits on the violence and ultimately prevent homicides. Another factor that recently came to light was the issue of firearm access by perpetrators of domestic violence. A recent court case challenged the ban on firearms possession by these men and contrary to the general trend of increasing gun extremism that ban was upheld (United States v. Rahimi).

I do not intend to elaborate on what is contained in the table. I encourage any reader to do your own research on what I have posted.  I have extensive references, but with these political posts – most people do not seem to be interested, especially when they run counter to the conventional wisdom or prevailing political rhetoric. Instead I will make some general comments on aggression, violence, and its effects.

As an acute care psychiatrist, I was faced with the problem on a daily basis.  Aggressive and violent people brought to my care generally by the police or paramedics.  The people I saw were involved in fights, shootouts, violent confrontations with the police, homicides (real and attempted), vandalism, threatening behavior, and suicide attempts.  The behaviors were extreme enough to precipitate 911 calls and for emergency responders to bring them to my hospital.  Not all hospitals take these calls because not all hospitals are set up to deal with violence and aggression.  The staff and the physicians need to approach it as a treatable problem.  That is the first lesson. Violence and aggression – even when it is caused by psychiatric illness is not considered a medical problem.  It is considered a moral problem.  In other words – the person intended to commit violent acts because they are either morally deficient or simply have no moral code. The vast majority of people I treated in this situation had a severe psychiatric disorder and did not know what they were doing. They could not appreciate the wrongfulness of their act.

In order for the person with aggression to be admitted to my unit – they had to have a psychiatric diagnosis rather than just criminal behavior.  That is an imperfect triage criterion and in a few cases, people were admitted with either criminal behavior or aggressive behavior that was goal directed to get what they want. Common examples include intimidating people for money or sex or just disagreeing with them. The associated excuses would be: “Well he/she had it coming.”, “They were just there when I went off.”, or "They did not give me what I wanted.”  These are all attitudes that people use who see others as strictly a means to an end. Other people are just there to be manipulated to get what they want. They are not seen as people just struggling along like everyone else with important goals and relationships. Resentment is a common theme and many of the perpetrators see themselves as getting a bad deal in life, not getting what other people have, and that may include loyalty in relationships.

All of that is a backdrop to the actual aggression or violence.  No matter how egregious that violence and aggression is – it is very common to see it minimized after the fact. That minimization can take the form of complete denial “I wasn’t there” to partial denial “I did not mean to kill him.”

On the less obvious end – aggression can include threatening behavior that involves appearing to be very angry and using profanity in someone’s presence for no clear reason, throwing objects, destroying property, right up to specific threats to kill or injure a person.  There is some confusion over how well these behaviors predict actual violent acts that result in injury but there are two considerations.  The argument has been made that psychiatrists really can not predict violence very well and that may be true for routine evaluations of relatively stable people in outpatient setting.  The prevalence of violence in that population is so low that I would not anticipate being able to predict it.  That changes in an acute care setting where the transition from verbal aggression or aggression toward property to physical violence against people happens very quickly.  The goal is always to stop it before the physical phase.

 At the societal level, the laws have slowly been changing to catch up.  Domestic violence laws lagged for decades until many states adopted the law that if a call occurred, an arrest had to be made. The law about domestic violence convictions leading to no gun possession was a similar development.  Finally, terroristic threat laws made it illegal to threaten people before any physical violence occurred. These terroristic threats laws have developed over the past 30 years and are really a major development compared with the idea that the person making the threats hasn’t done anything yet and we can’t do anything unless they do something.  It is hard to imagine how many people were directly threatened and heard that response from law enforcement.

The driving force behind these legal changes was recognition of what the victims were going through. In some cases, years of harassment, needing to take extraordinary measures to assure their safety, and suffering the effects of this extreme stress in the form of chronic insomnia, anxiety, panic attacks, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and physical symptoms.  In many cases jobs and families were disrupted.

The groups I named in the above graphic have been through all of that and more.  In the Insurrection there were estimates of 140-170 officers injured and 5 dead – one from injuries sustained at the scene and 4 subsequently by suicide.  I have not seen any specific reports of the number of police affected by mental health symptoms but expect it is significant. Various efforts have been made to minimize the event and the media seems to go along with them. Even though the popular press does say that one party and one candidate has been lying continuously that the 2020 election had been “stolen” – very little is done on a day-by-day basis to confront this lie.   Nobody is saying that we have a Presidential candidate who attempted to overthrow the elected government of the United States and currently has operatives in place to disrupt the current election. That may be why 1 out of 3 election workers report being harassed often to the point that they quit volunteer jobs that they have been in for decades. 

The remaining groups in the table are self-evident.  We have all seen people screaming and threatening in school board town hall meetings.  There are substantiated reports of severe threats to public health officials and disaster workers. This is all politically motivated aggression and violence that is precipitated by misinformation and political rhetoric. A good recent example was the attempt to connect anti-immigrant rhetoric to hurricane relief and suggest that funds were being diverted to undocumented immigrants. Gun extremism and abortion clinic violence predates the most recent cycle but are good examples of the process. Make emotional inaccurate claims, blame somebody for the problem even if they are law abiding, and let the chips fall where they may.  This process just keeps repeating itself with a party that always doubles down, never acknowledges they are wrong, and never acknowledges what they are really doing – dividing people and turning them against one another.   This line of rhetoric also distracts from the fact that the party in question really has no acceptable policy.  When their self-proclaimed genius economic policy was vetted by Nobel laureates in economics it was found to be seriously deficient.

When I posted this graphic on another site I was immediately confronted with the question about violence and crime created by undocumented immigrants.  I responded with a study done by the Department of Justice based on the arrest records of the most right wing state in the US – Texas. That study shows that these people are much less likely to be arrested for violent or property crimes than citizens born in the US.  Even without knowing about it – it makes sense. The people at the southern border are fleeing corrupt governments and criminals in South and Central America.  The last thing they want to see happen is to be deported back to their country of origin. Because they are undocumented, they need to maintain as low a profile as possible. That would include no encounters with law enforcement.

The idea that political violence could be compared to violence by undocumented immigrants is a feature of the rhetoric used to obscure the real problem. That real problem is that there should be no political violence at all in the United States.  Politics in this country is supposed to operate on the peaceful transfer of power and no party using its power to intimidate either the voters or the election process. We are way past that at this point and it is all on one party.  The political violence is a direct effect of dishonesty and manipulation.  There has not been an adequate effort by the opposition to push back in many of these areas and that leads me to have grave concerns about the upcoming election.

I am hoping that the vote rejects political violence and all that involves so that people can feel safe and we can start to focus on real problems instead of contrived political problems.  You can get rid of political violence by voting it out - at least in this election.  It will be a worse problem to get rid of if it becomes institutionalized.

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Supplementary 1:  Unfortunately I have to keep adding boxes.  The latest is a direct comment form former President Trump.  Before anyone suggests he was just "joking" or "nobody takes him seriously" or tires to explain it in any other way consider this.  This is unprecedented discourse in an American election.  It follows Trump threatening to use the military against his perceived "enemies form within."  It should be fairly clear that he considers political opponents or in many cases people who just disagree with him as enemies.  Violent rhetoric aside - this is not an attitude any reasonable politician can have when they are supposed to represent all of the American people.

Lessons In Political Violence

 

I got tired of waiting for the American free press to provide an analysis of political violence in the country.  It is a huge omission in day-to-day discussions of the coarsening of American politics.  I was prompted to think about it as I was out driving around today listening to stories of election officials being threatened and manipulated as the federal election approaches, some to the point that they will no longer do the work that they have been doing for years. In a long-standing democracy why is this not front-page news?  Where is the analysis of the problem?  Who has an interest in suppressing the vote and why are they continuing to do this?  At the same time, I heard about a poll today saying that most Americans will not trust the election results – even though they are the most secure at any time in history and there is no evidence of suspicious activity.

Elections are not the only places where political violence is acted out in the US.  Abortion clinics – even during the days of Roe were places where women were harassed and doctors were shot and killed. Schools, teachers, librarians, and school board members are targets for similar politics with threats, work exhaustion, and ultimately moral injury when they are shouted down and threatened for doing the work that they are trained and licensed to do.  Public health officials are attacked for providing the best possible public health advice just because some politicians don’t like it or need to cover their own incompetence.  Since when is it acceptable for politicians to be inciting this level of violence against competent citizens with high levels of competence – who are just doing their jobs?   

Before proceeding I will define what I mean about violence.  The same people who incite it frequently minimize it after the fact using the rhetorical sleight of hand: “It is free speech and I can say whatever I want to say.”  Without invoking the famous Supreme Court quote – let me provide a little detail about definitions.  First, violence or aggression does not require physical act.  Aggression has components that occur on a strictly verbal level and aggression toward property or inanimate objects as well as self (2).  If you have ever witnessed any of those forms of aggression, you know why it is important.  It has a direct impact on you that can be long-lasting. Threats alone can significantly affect your sense of physical and mental well-being. Many states have terroristic threat statutes that can result in legal action before any physical contact occurs (see Minnesota statute below). Threats alone are a signal that physical aggression may occur and in many states it can result in visits from the police, orders for protection, and in the case of mental illness – involuntary holds and civil commitment. Interestingly, the political violence I described typically results in the victims trying to protect themselves.

What does interpersonal violence look like?  On a verbal basis it can be angry shouting like we have seen many times in televised school board meetings.  That can include name calling, personal insults, and profanities.  As the verbal aggression increases the insults gets worse to the point of threatening physical violence. That is evident in routinely televised road and customer rage incidents.  Whether it culminates in physical violence or not is not the point. For years the police tended to ignore verbal aggression and operated on the basis that the only type of aggression that counts is physical aggression.  Over the past 20 years there has been a more enlightened approach since verbal aggression is harmful and predicts physical aggression.  That has been associated with domestic violence and terroristic threat statutes.  In the main areas I have discussed the violence has increased to the point that the Department of Justice is aware of it and successfully prosecutes cases (3,4,5).

Social media has become another source of aggression and interpersonal violence. The popular press documents an explosion of hate speech on X (formerly known as Twitter) while the new owner Elon Musk denies it and claims to have reinstated both right wing and left wing posters as a "centrist".  In the meantime academics debate the definition of hate speech (6) but were still able to find 91 papers written about it on Twitter alone.  Violence and hate speech are probably best analyzed on a case by case basis and in my estimation there is no better example than the last two chapters of Anthony Fauci's book On Call (7).  In it, Fauci clearly describes how providing the best possible public health advice to the White House angered President Trump and the non-experts he hired to manage the pandemic. Fauci was politically scapegoated, derided by other Republicans and MAGA, terrorized at work and home, and ultimately threatened with incarceration for providing historically outstanding public health service to the American people.  MAGA politicians are still threatening to incarcerate him even though he is retired.  I encounter people to this day who "hate" Dr. Fauci - not based on any semblance of reality but the gross misinformation provided to them by MAGA.  That entire sequence of events flowed from Trump's anger that the scientific facts (masking, herd immunity, immunization) did not fit with what he wanted to tell the public.  This is exactly how political violence occurs.  

From a political standpoint, this violence and aggression is often rationalized as “free speech” and it is not.  Violence is often rationalized as the absence of physical contact.  That really minimizes the impact of significant unprovoked threats that can include threats to bodily integrity.   The current elimination of gun laws makes some of these situations even more dangerous.  To cite one example, there was an armed protest in front of a director of public health’s home and in this case the police did nothing.  How would anyone feel about have a group armed with assault rifles outside of your home saying there will be no violence “for now” because you are doing your legal job.

What I find missing from most of these discussions is the overall cause.  I do not think there is any doubt that it originates with one party or more specifically movement and their aggressive rhetoric essentially because they have no useful policy. That is as obvious as the continued denials of the 2020 Presidential election results and the high percentages of people polled within that party (88%) that have doubts about the current election.  We have seen the effects of their propaganda, repeated lies, and political violence on these systems and it is completely unnecessary.  It also causes significant degradation of these systems when long time competent professionals leave because of the threats and harassment.  

Political violence in the US is quite literally the elephant in the room.  And it is time to start talking about it that way. Where is the press with this analysis?

 George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Supplementary 1:

I decided to include the current Minnesota terroristic threat statute as an example. Note that physical violence is not necessary.  I am no attorney but carrying assault rifle and saying that you are not going to commit violence "yet" would seem to be an indirect threat of violence.  

Supplementary 2:  My wife and I voted at City Hall today.  It was technically an "in-person absentee" ballot.  The process was identical to the one 4 years ago.  We provided several levels of ID including - Driver's License number, address, phone numbers, email address, and Social Security Number. The election official was separated from us in a separate room and all discussion occurred through a heavy glass window with a portal.  We presented an identification form.  When that information was confirmed the election official printed a label with verification that was affixed to the top of our ballots. We were advised to complete the ballot - seal it inside 2 envelopes using tape provided at the voting stations and then return it to her.  When we returned the ballot she personally signed each ballot with her name and address.  There was no public access to a ballot box or voting machine and the entire process was airtight.  I did notice that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is still on the Minnesota ballot along with several other third party candidates.

Supplementary 3:  Former President Trump's ad in 1989 directed at the Central Park 5 is another good example of political rhetoric obscuring the facts.   In this ad he discusses hating the suspects and wanting them executed.  They were subsequently exonerated based on DNA evidence and won a $41 M lawsuit against the city of New York for malicious prosecution.  

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6131533-trumpdeathpenaltyad05011989

Supplementary 4:  Updated graphic to include a number of false attacks on the Biden Harris administration and their handling of hurricane emergencies.   Many were ultimately refuted by Republicans including Republican Governors.  First responders and aid workers were described as demoralized.  This occurs two weeks after Elon Musk commented that  "no one is even trying to assassinate Biden/Kamala"  Musk subsequently said he was joking and removed the comment from Twitter but said he would not retract it.  The White House condemned it for condoning political violence.  In an age where you can not joke about bombs or terrorists on airplanes "jokes" about assassination should obviously be out of bounds.  I have seen people interrogated by the Secret Service for similar comments.   

  

Addendum:  There are so many of these incidents of violence out there I decided not to try to reference them all.  They can easily be found by Google searching the main heading like "election worker violence" and secondary elements.  You will get a lot of references and very little attribution to the political cause other than "divisiveness".   That word in itself should be telling because it is one of the main strategies of one party. 

References:

1:  Meghna Chakrabarti.  On Point.  "Elections officials endure protests, death threats. Here are their stories."  https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510053/on-point

This is the radio program I heard this afternoon.

2:  Yudofsky SC, Silver JM, Jackson W, Endicott J, Williams D. The Overt Aggression Scale for the objective rating of verbal and physical aggression. Am J Psychiatry. 1986 Jan;143(1):35-9

3:  USDOJ Election Threats Task Force:  https://www.justice.gov/voting/election-threats

4:  USDOJ.  Justice Department Addresses Violent Threats Against School Officials and Teachers

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-addresses-violent-threats-against-school-officials-and-teachers

5:  Fraser MR. Harassment of Health Officials: A Significant Threat to the Public's Health. Am J Public Health. 2022 May;112(5):728-730. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2022.306797

6:  Mansur Z, Omar N, Tiun S. Twitter hate speech detection: A systematic review of methods, taxonomy analysis, challenges, and opportunities. IEEE Access. 2023 Jan 25;11:16226-49.

7:  Fauci A.  On Call: A Doctor's Journey in Public Service.  New York, New York: Viking, 2024: 374-455.

The Times They Are A-Changin’ – or Are they?

I was walking around last week at dusk on a couple of nights. For the first time I decided to listen to some music as I walked. I would never do this if I was cycling because you need to hear the tire noise of approaching vehicles and I was using noise cancellation headphones tied into my music library. I also decided to use shuffle mode and that is also unusual – I typically repeat tracks until I get tired of them and that often takes a long time. For some reason, my phone kept playing Dylan songs. It reminded me of how I really did not like Dylan when I was young and listening to Hendrix and the Who. My interest peaked when he got the Noble Prize for Literature. It peaked again when I heard him interviewed and he talked about how easy it was to write music when he was younger. The music just seemed to flow and all he had to do was write it down. It was how mathematicians were described in Nasar’s biography of John Nash. Young mathematicians typically produced most of the ideas that advanced the field.

A lot of the songs were melancholy tunes about relationships gone bad.  Some were lessons in how not to be codependent. I was acutely aware of being an old man dressed in black listening to this music and free associating to similar events in my life from long ago. Before it got too maudlin - The Times They Are A-Changin’ came on:

Come gather 'round people

Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth savin'
And you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'

I could have sworn that what I heard walking around in the dark was a direct reference to the United States in that song. But looking it up later - it was not there. The song snapped me out of interpersonal reflection and into the current threat to American democracy.  For the past several days I had been responding to social media posts about the disconnect between what appears to be going on in national presidential politics and the reality of the situation. Just that day I responded to a poster questioning why Christians appear to be in lock step with a candidate who does not appear to have similar values and how Biden has done very well in the White House but seems to be struggling in the polls against a candidate with a known poor record who orchestrated an insurrection against the US government? A candidate who has been charged with 91 felonies. Even more mysteriously, the entire Republican party with rare exceptions is supporting Trump and most want his endorsement in local and state elections. How can a candidate with that many flaws still be in contention at this point and dominating a party that was originally abolitionist and got Lincoln elected as their first President before the start of the Civil War?  It does not make any sense and I will look at the hypotheticals below.  I tried to put as many as possible into the graphic at the head of this post – but only the coarsest details are possible:

1:  A general lack of critical thinking:

It has been a long time since I took a high school English class, but from what I recall even back in those days there was very little emphasis on rhetoric. Critical thinking generally involved the decoding the author’s intent, detection of symbolism and defending an opinion on a theme: “Do you find Lord of the Flies to be optimistic or pessimistic and why?”  Rhetoric was largely confined to debate teams that a small percentage of students participated in.

It has never been more important for the average citizen to be informed and aware of what might be rhetorical distortions. There used to be some level of assistance from professionally edited news, but that is no longer reliably available. Today it is possible to get all your news from a site that you agree with on ideological grounds – no matter how far from reality that site gets. Apart from these echo chambers on the Internet, the main street news offers minimal assistance.  You might find stories about the polarized electorate with no discussion of what that means or if one side is more polarized than the other.  Threats and overt violence were introduced into the political scene with no comment that this is almost an entirely right-wing phenomenon that is often tied in with gun rights and bragging about who owns the most guns. The right wing owns both moral and gun extremism in the US and yet there no criticism of this in mainstream media. Most importantly, political violence against specific groups should be unacceptable in the US and it is increasingly apparent.

2:  President Biden is too old: 

This seems to be a popular trope in both campaign propaganda and as material for comedians.  Bill Maher for example, will often detail the accomplishments of the Biden administration as being some of the most significant in decades only to incorporate polling questions about his age and conclude he should step down and let someone else run. No suggestions about who that should be and judging from the declared candidates there is no one of suitable name recognition or accomplishment who could run and expect to get support equal to Trump’s locked in MAGA constituency. If you look at my graphic – any candidate the Democrats advance will not have the amount of leverage with the voters based on the factors listed.

But backing up – is 80 years old – too old?  I saw President Biden on the bike and I saw him fall. It was clearly a mistake that people make when they are not used to toe clip pedals. The part that most people seem to ignore is that he got up with no problems. That is not the mark of a feeble old man and neither is the current schedule he has been keeping. More to the point – he has an awareness of how things need to run in the Executive Branch, how information needs to be managed, how consultation with staff is a critical function, and how to manage alliances.  There is minimal evidence that his predecessor has that level of awareness.  

There is certainly no current evidence that Biden cannot do the job given his list of accomplishments and some high-profile incidents – most notably his performance at the last State of the Union address. Ageism is certainly a prominent cultural bias in the US.  If I were a foreign actor wanting to manipulate the American electorate – I would use it, especially if I knew the opposition party could easily be convinced to use it.  The current group of Republicans could be expected to jump on it even though some of their members of Congress are older than Biden.

3:  The Republican base has been manipulated and brain washed by culture war tropes: 

This is undoubtedly a factor at some level.  I have written on this blog about how the GOP has become a party of gun and moral extremists – not out of some strict Constitutional interpretation or religious belief, but out of political expediency. It is easy to manufacture some ideological position to elicit emotional responses from some voters and get them to believe they are in a morally or Constitutionally superior position. Fortunately, that is not how democracy works but it is how the current crop of Republicans want it to work. In the meantime, public safety, education, and women’s health have all been compromised. On the day I am typing this a Constitutional Amendment for reproductive rights was passed in Ohio blocking attempts to pass restrictive abortion laws. Whether this can be a rallying point against moral extremism is an open question at this point.

4:  Fragmentation among Democrats: 

There is some concern that progressives within the party have gone too far in areas of social consciousness particularly social justice issues involving race and the LGBT community. The concern is amplified by the Republican’s rhetorical use of the term woke as a pejorative. That has allowed them to indiscriminately use the term to criticize health care, educational, social, and economic policies as being too woke (translation politically correct) and simultaneously suggest that most Americans would not find it to be acceptable. That can range from books in a high school library that were read by several older generations to college admission policies to protests about excessive use of force by the police.

The current war between Israel and Hamas is a similar flashpoint. One analysis suggests that progressives see the world though a simple lens of colonizers and victims. That has been spun into Israel starting a genocidal war in Gaza or even the US starting or backing such a war. In the most extreme case, social media was abuzz with young people supporting a letter allegedly written by a famous terrorist, blaming the United States for terrorist attacks. That has also led to protests and threats to Jewish college students in the United States. All of that misses the point that violence is being incited against US citizens who happen to be Jewish and that Hamas clearly started the war and clearly stated their ongoing goal is to destroy Israel and kill their citizens.

5:  Activation of far right white supremacist and antisemitic groups:  

There is no doubt that fringe groups that were essentially silenced for many years were activated during the Trump administration and actively support him. In my own neighborhood there was widespread dissemination of white supremacist literature for tens of miles in all directions.  That has never happened in the Midwest during my lifetime. Further investigation linked the same group spreading that literature to antisemitism.  Investigation by local officials and law enforcement did not identify the specific perpetrators and no charges were ever filed.

6:  Activation of antisemitism in younger generations: 

The facts are not disputed and various theories have been proposed. The history is forgotten explanation seems to have a lot of traction.  At least it seems to have garnered the most speculation. In other words, with less exposure to Holocaust survivors and the history of World War II, younger generations are unlikely to believe the actual historical events – a clearly documented genocide against the Jewish people. That seems to minimize any role of activated antisemitic hate groups and social media. Many of these groups are now at the point that they show up in public demonstrations and are attempting to recruit new members from suburban neighborhoods. The wave of antisemitism in the younger generation has had far reaching effects on college campuses, in some cases to the point that departments and administrations failed to condemn the recent terrorist attack against Israel or an obvious problem of antisemitism on their campuses. This generation uses TikTok as a preferred social media site. In a recent press release they described removing tens of thousands of antisemitic posts.  Just how long that posting has occurred is unknown.

I think it is also useful to recall that political violence directed at minority groups is a well-known tactic of fascist and totalitarian states.  In the early days of the Internet online discussions often became heated to the point that accusations of Naziism were often made.  This led to Godwin’s Rule or as an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison to Nazis or Adolf Hitler approaches 1.  That is basically nerd speak to say that analogies to Nazis based on Internet discussions is probably absurd. What I have seen lately suggests to me that we are beyond the absurd stage when people are injured and living in fear.  If it walks and talks  like a Nazi….

 7:  The social media propaganda machine:  

Social media seems to always be in the news. The common topic is how it is a malignant force in the lives of teenagers and children. There is concern that you can get “addicted” to rapidly scrolling and clicking on too many sites. People talk about the dopaminergic effects of this activity – like the neuroscience is known. Even though we had a foreign government actively interfering in the last Presidential election through social media and email hacks – nobody seems focused on that happening again. US Intelligence agencies predicted that it would happen again and it would probably be more vigorous than the last time. It is also more difficult to detect because the foreign actors are all using servers within the United States. Several agencies are responsible for detecting and monitoring this activity – but 1 year out none of them are reporting on what they see or what kind of misinformation is being posted. You don’t have to be a secret agent to think about who these foreign actors are. Russia was clearly involved in the last Presidential election and given the situation in Ukraine – they would clearly prefer Trump over Biden.  Putin has actively encouraged Russian hackers at all levels including those who steal money from average Americans.  Trump has made it clear that he would not support Ukraine and he clearly had a negative impact on NATO.  Biden has been able to reverse most of that damage and unify NATO.  Iran, China, and North Korea also have an interest in a Trump presidency.  These countries either have a direct interest in supporting Trump based on his probable policies or just weakening the US by more divisiveness in the electorate.

 8:  Uncritical voters:  

I heard Iowa voters asked about why they are voting for Trump and why he is so popular in their state.  I heard the following responses:

 “He is a businessman.”

 “He says what is on his mind.”

 “I don’t care what he has said or done – I am voting for him.”

These responses and his previous performance – all indicate that many Trump voters are not focused on any policy.  It would probably be difficult because most of the policies that Trump seems focused on at this point have to do with revenge against his perceived enemies.  That is typically a low bar – they are people who either disagree with him or want accountability.  That leads me to a previously stated conclusion I made that a lot of Trump’s base are nihilists who just want to burn the system down. It is difficult to find more nihilistic behavior than orchestrating an insurrection against the US government and refusing the peaceful transfer of power.

Given the above analysis – I think the negative sentiment about President Biden is primarily the product of foreign actors manipulating the American electorate. That also explains the disconnect between many of the demographic features of Trump voters and their candidate.

I do not want to put all of this on young voters.  There are clearly older voters who demonstrate similar levels of cluelessness, probably borne out of long-standing biases.  It is up to voters of all ages to not believe what you see in social media echo chambers, clear propaganda from hate groups, and similar attitudes that may have existed in your culture for generations. We cannot turn the United States over to a man and a party of extremists who have proven time again that they have no vision for the country or where it is headed. In Congress the Republican majority has clearly demonstrated that they cannot govern. We cannot be influenced by groups seeking to divide Americans and destroy the values that this country was founded on.

We all must start swimmin’ to save American democracy.

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

References:

1:  Hotez, Peter. "On Antiscience and Antisemitism." Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, vol. 66 no. 3, 2023, p. 420-436. Project MUSE, https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2023.a902035.

2:  Scherer, Nancy & Miller, Banks. (2009). The Federalist Society's Influence on the Federal Judiciary. Political Research Quarterly - Polit Res Quart 62. 366-378. https://doi.org//10.1177/1065912908317030. 

Graphic Credit: I made this graphic 

Supplementary 1:  Why I wrote this post - this post is not an analysis of the psychiatric status of either candidate.  I am on record on this blog that the role of assessing the President's fitness to work in that office is supposed to be assumed by lay people working with him or her.  Many people working with Trump have provided scathing critiques of what they observed. I have not seen any from the Biden administration. 

This post was written basically as an exploration of how a candidate who seems so intellectually, emotionally, and temperamentally unfit for the office (as determined by multiple independent assessments by non-mental health professionals) has such a draw with the electorate. It seems mystifying until you look at the diagram and realize that more of the factors that leverage the electorate are stacked against Biden rather than Trump. In fact - replacing Biden in the graphic results in minimal gains. If I had to speculate on the biggest effect I would see it as all of the factors impinging on the social media on Trump's side.  

For the record, I am not a life long Democrat and in fact ran as an Independent in 2000 for the US Senate from Minnesota. As a life long skeptic of both major parties, that was an eye opening experience. I am currently highly motivated to write about political extremism that I see from Republicans and the fact that it is only getting worse.  Giving Trump the job again when we already know what happened the last time is a clear mistake.  Allowing the Republican Party to maintain a nongoverning, culture wars, nihilistic response is also a massive mistake for the Republic.   

 

Supplementary 2:

Will add some examples to highlight the graphic as the I see them on a day to day basis:

Taylor Lorenz - excellent example that I saw today on TMZ is this interview.  Before this the TMZ crew showed Biden's attempt at humor with a birthday cake and they continue this into the interview like he is trying to win young voters with jokes.  Ms. Lorenz of course jumps on the opportunity to point out that Biden has not been focused on what Millennials or Gen Z want.  She cites an example of student loan forgiveness was not a focus apparently forgetting that his $430B student loan forgiveness plan was shot down by the right wing Supreme Court.  All three justices appointed by Trump (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett) voted against the plan in a 6-3 vote (Biden v. Nebraska).  Instead she praises Trump for being "authentic."  With brilliant analyses like that Biden does not stand a chance. 

Adam Kinzinger - seems like a rare positive force in American politics today.  I saw him on Real Time with Bill Maher last week where he clearly stated that there was only one pro-democracy political party in the US and it was the Democrats. The former Republican Congressman clearly described why fanaticism is a negative coercive force in politics and that is why it needs to be eliminated. He also founded the Country First PAC as a way to distance himself from right wing extremists and conspiracy theories. 

Gen. Mark Milley - questioned about President Biden's performance by 60 minutes.