In a Reuters/Ipsos poll from September, 17 percent of Americans somewhat or strongly agreed that political violence against those they disagreed with was acceptable, with slightly more Democrats agreeing with the statement than Republicans or independents. However, just a small fraction of registered voters said taking up arms or a civil war was necessary to fix our democracy in a recent New York Times/Siena poll.
As striking as some of those results are, some research suggests Americans’ true views are much more passive. Some of these responses can be chalked up to respondents not paying close enough attention, vaguely worded questions or both, according to a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in March.
Rather than embracing political violence as acceptable, Americans are more likely to find ways to downplay the threat. In response to the attack on Pelosi this week, some Republicans and right-wing figures have been spreading conspiracy theories that the attack was actually the result of a lovers quarrel, a baseless reframing that disregards the possibility that the violence was politically motivated.This is actually an editorial opinion piece written by a couple of writers over at 538. They seem to want to brush by the idea that more Democrats likely than Republicans to justify political violence largely because they are part of the media complex that keeps suggesting that the vast majority of political violence is "right wing".
Apparently the fact the left is more prone to violence than the right is because people are not paying attention, they are tricked by confusing questions, or because people are downplaying "political violence".
I found the bit about Pelosi to be telling as they refer to the idea that this was somehow a sexual encounter as a conspiracy theory, but not the idea that he was a right wing Jan 6th zealot who was repeating a white supremacist chant about Nancy Pelosi. The real truth was that he was a mentally ill person, who believed at one time he was Jesus, and didn't appear to have any more right wing political beliefs than left wing and played no part in Jan 6th whatsoever. Why is one false narrative a conspiracy theory while the other is an acceptable narrative to push?
I found the bit about Pelosi to be telling as they refer to the idea that this was somehow a sexual encounter as a conspiracy theory, but not the idea that he was a right wing Jan 6th zealot who was repeating a white supremacist chant about Nancy Pelosi. The real truth was that he was a mentally ill person, who believed at one time he was Jesus, and didn't appear to have any more right wing political beliefs than left wing and played no part in Jan 6th whatsoever. Why is one false narrative a conspiracy theory while the other is an acceptable narrative to push?
How many times has there been a shooting or an act of violence where the first thing the media does is demand that it is either "right wing" or "white supremacy" only to later find out that it was a liberal black person who was the actual perpetrator (or something of that nature). Heck we even had "white hispanics" who committed crimes. The media made up a new race to push their silly propaganda. Moreover, do they ever apologize or even admit they were wrong?
Either way, it does not surprise me that there are more liberal than conservatives who accept political violence, as the lion's share of political (social justice) violence has been from the left over the past several years. The media just likes to call liberal violence "peaceful protests" while demanding that less violent situations on the right are basically the end of civilization as we know it.
