I think the extremist left-wing is similarly varied: from a strong central government (socialist/communist/environmentalist) to ~anarchists (who thus far have been the only violent ones[8])
The Voter Study Group actually found that tolerance of violence correlated negatively with (one measure of) partisanship
Less of a stomach for violence (a la Steven Pinker)[9]
Financing: Would be hard. If a group gets labeled as a terrorist organization you really don’t want to be associated with them financially[10]
We’re still missing a lot of insurgency qualities[11] (this can also be used as a list of red flags if any of these crop up)
‘Excluded Population’ (large slices of the population excluded from political access) is by far the biggest factor that predicts conflicts in their model. I think political representation is the rough opposite, and that the US is doing pretty on the front, compared to e.g. 55 years ago when plenty of folks couldn’t vote.
I could only find one instance (although RAND says there are two) of something approximating a civil war in a developed country since 1945: The Troubles in Ireland. That’s out of >127 civil wars that killed at least 1,000 people. Fearon and Laitin: “for any level of ethnic diversity, as one moves up the income scale, the odds of civil war decrease, by substantial factors in all cases and dramatically among the most homogeneous countries. The richest fifth is practically immune regardless of ethnic composition”
My current guess is the US military would be especially effective at counterinsurgency in the US: shared language & culture with the locals, better command & control (compared to e.g. cooperating with foreign militias), and probably less political quagmire due to fewer governments at play. Although politics could make things very hard, e.g. blowback when fellow Americans get caught in the crossfire.
The Portland protest shooting is the only far-left death in the past 20 years according to New America. There’s also plenty of ~anarchists that don’t fit cleanly in a left/right bucket, like the Michigan folks.
While the Voter Study Group has some fraction of voters feeling violence is ‘justified’, it’s not clear what this means. The steady decline of violent crime still feels pretty compelling. Perhaps the definition of ‘violence’ is shifting away from ‘killing people’ towards ‘punching people’? While people might feel it’s justified, would anyone actually commit violence?
I’m pretty unsure, but it would probably fall in ITAR/OFAC violation territory, which involves million dollar fines, frozen assets, and decades in prison. Banks are allergic to people/orgs remotely associated with terrorism, because the Treasury can invoke §311 of the Patriot Act to cut the bank off from the financial system. Oh and you might lose nonprofit status.
to get to the same per capita rate as The Troubles we would be losing ~50,000 people per year to political violence (Troubles had ~250 deaths per year in the 70s with a population of ~1.6m, scale that up to a 328m population and you get ~51k). Though many other insurgency conflicts had lower deaths per capita.
some models against things getting worse
Negative correlates: Country qualities that negatively correlate with conflict[1]
Strong democratic institutions. Maybe because it makes lots of trusted non-violent avenues for change[2]
Wealth[3]. Maybe you’re less likely to risk dying if you can meet your needs well enough with the current system
Political representation[4]
Being a developed country[5]
Military: I think the overwhelming majority of groups would not want to fight the military, from PR risk[6] and dying risk[7]
Ideology: Hard to get people to rally behind a specific extremist cause
The ideology of the extremist right-wing is actually pretty varied and sometimes contradictory.
I think the extremist left-wing is similarly varied: from a strong central government (socialist/communist/environmentalist) to ~anarchists (who thus far have been the only violent ones[8])
The Voter Study Group actually found that tolerance of violence correlated negatively with (one measure of) partisanship
Less of a stomach for violence (a la Steven Pinker)[9]
Financing: Would be hard. If a group gets labeled as a terrorist organization you really don’t want to be associated with them financially[10]
We’re still missing a lot of insurgency qualities[11] (this can also be used as a list of red flags if any of these crop up)
High levels of political violence[12]
Organized, violence-endorsing groups
With significant membership (say >50,000)
Publicly claiming responsibility for specific violence, e.g. assassinations of political leaders
With popular-ish ideology
With charismatic leadership
Attempting to garner popular support
Low rates of defection
Institutions supporting violent groups (e.g. town or state or foreign governments, churches, unions, wealthy individuals/organizations)
Economic gradients towards supporting or joining insurgents
Insurgents attempting to claim & defend territory from the government
Insurgents being supported by foreign groups (governments, terrorist orgs)
according to Ward et al’s model
I think a parliamentary democracy would probably be better, but still
Ward et al used infant mortality rate to track this
‘Excluded Population’ (large slices of the population excluded from political access) is by far the biggest factor that predicts conflicts in their model. I think political representation is the rough opposite, and that the US is doing pretty on the front, compared to e.g. 55 years ago when plenty of folks couldn’t vote.
I could only find one instance (although RAND says there are two) of something approximating a civil war in a developed country since 1945: The Troubles in Ireland. That’s out of >127 civil wars that killed at least 1,000 people. Fearon and Laitin: “for any level of ethnic diversity, as one moves up the income scale, the odds of civil war decrease, by substantial factors in all cases and dramatically among the most homogeneous countries. The richest fifth is practically immune regardless of ethnic composition”
Going up against the most respected US institution is rough if you need recruits and the support of locals.
My current guess is the US military would be especially effective at counterinsurgency in the US: shared language & culture with the locals, better command & control (compared to e.g. cooperating with foreign militias), and probably less political quagmire due to fewer governments at play. Although politics could make things very hard, e.g. blowback when fellow Americans get caught in the crossfire.
The Portland protest shooting is the only far-left death in the past 20 years according to New America. There’s also plenty of ~anarchists that don’t fit cleanly in a left/right bucket, like the Michigan folks.
While the Voter Study Group has some fraction of voters feeling violence is ‘justified’, it’s not clear what this means. The steady decline of violent crime still feels pretty compelling. Perhaps the definition of ‘violence’ is shifting away from ‘killing people’ towards ‘punching people’? While people might feel it’s justified, would anyone actually commit violence?
I’m pretty unsure, but it would probably fall in ITAR/OFAC violation territory, which involves million dollar fines, frozen assets, and decades in prison. Banks are allergic to people/orgs remotely associated with terrorism, because the Treasury can invoke §311 of the Patriot Act to cut the bank off from the financial system. Oh and you might lose nonprofit status.
See e.g. the CIA’s Guide to Analysis of Insurgency or RAND’s How Insurgencies End
to get to the same per capita rate as The Troubles we would be losing ~50,000 people per year to political violence (Troubles had ~250 deaths per year in the 70s with a population of ~1.6m, scale that up to a 328m population and you get ~51k). Though many other insurgency conflicts had lower deaths per capita.