Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Longform Essay on Political Violence

DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 12:58:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Of all the pompous, self-indulgent things that a member of DDO can perform, what I am about to do may be the most unforgivable.

I often feel truncated in my ability to communicate my perspective out to the watercooler. My participation on this site is predicated entirely on improving this frustrating ability, by advancing and expanding and shortening arguments that I find myself repeating over and over again. I place key emphasis here is on the word "shortening."

The ability to deliver a fast, concise, easy to understand argument that is easy to repeat is integral to public discourse. In all of the political campaigns and activism efforts that I have been a part of, I have preached a single rule: "Keep It Simple, Stupid." An argument must be presented so that an idiot can understand it - because most people are distracted when they encounter it. They won't have time for your farting and trumpeting.

Say it fast or do not say it at all. Use simple words, use simple ideas. Anything else is unforgivably grand.

I will now violate the spirit and the letter of this hard rule in as comprehensive a fashion as I possibly can.

A sufferer and spreader of literary elephantits, I (more than anyone) can use my own advice. My writing style is dense. I regularly ignore the rule that persuasive writing is best done at the 8th grade level. My sentences are too long. I molest hyphens and semicolons mercilessly. My "written voice" is more dry than a recorded message to "press 1 for English."

Despite these afflictions, I want to present a longform view of my thoughts on the subject of political violence. I have no delusions that they will be read by very many persons; this is too long, and too dense. However, if I want to enjoy the conceit that my ideas are solid, I must present them to scrutiny from sources that will not hesitate to eviscerate any misphrase or incautious statement.

In other words, I trust that someone here may find a weakness or flaw in this essay, expose it, and so develop my thoughts further thereby. Since this type of development is my only real goal for participating on this site, I see little reason to be shy. Moreover, while I might like to debate the topic piecemeal, I am afraid that such an exercise would take months. I am as impatient as I am verbose.

So, with apologies, I would like to present my essay on Political Violence in this thread.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 12:58:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The political climate in America over the past thirty years appears to have become increasingly violent, and seems to have become conducive to a new rise in political extremism.

In the wake of a recent spate of violent outbursts, which have included assassinations, threats of assassination, political intimidation and violence, and politically motivated homicides, many political activists have asked if now would be a good time to begin a systematic study of the roots, causes and mechanics of political violence. Many American liberals have wondered why the American right seems to be more violent than the left.

This paper will attempt to add to the debate in the following ways:

Will ask if political ideology plays an obvious role in increasing or decreasing the likelihood of political violence.

Will seek a mechanical or systemic cause for any relationship to violence, rather than attempting to identify any particular ideological support or opposition for/to violence.

Will attempt to use these mechanistic causes for political violence rather than ideological causes to explain partly why one ideological faction seems to have a disproportionately high incidence of political violence.

Additionally, this paper will make the following unsupported background assumptions for the purposes of clarity and brevity:

Violence will be understood as a mostly self-defensive reaction to a perceived threat. This requires that a term that will be used by this author be explained: The "fear/anger/violence" chain reaction. This chain reaction, or cycle, or spiral, is used to simplify the discussion of what will be understood to cause the transition from simple fear to a violent reaction to that fear. A climate of fear can help create the conditions for increased anger and actualized violence. This actual violence then itself causes greater fear and anger, which perpetuates the cycle. Violent action in this paper is used exclusively to explain an aggressive system of defense, rather than a system of offensive action.

The shortcomings of the "Political Spectrum" will be downplayed, but not ignored. The shortcomings of considering every political viewpoint as left/right is a fallacy of over simplification. Due to bizarre results that are caused by overemphasis on the political spectrum, identification as left/right will be made cautiously.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 12:58:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
WHAT IS POLITICAL VIOLENCE?

Political violence is differentiated from terrorism, in that it may not be intended as a military tactic, and may not be used as a method to directly affect any particular political outcome. Political violence may be reflexive, mindless, undirected and counterproductive to the users of such violent acts.

The largest single type of political violence in the United States since 1882 is the act of lynching. According to the Tuskegee Institute, some 4,743 such murders occurred between 1882 and 1968. Most of these involved the killings of blacks, and other minorities, such as Native Americans, Mexicans and Chinese were not uncommon. Some 1200 whites were also murdered by lynching during this time, mainly immigrants and religious minorities.

No other form of political violence comes anywhere near the numbers of dead, or the cultural and political impact of lynching. As a direct result of this wave of terror, an estimated 6.5 million blacks moved away from the South, or into large cities where they often felt safer.

(Source: Hahn, Steven. A Nation under Our Feet (2003), The Belknap Press of Harvard University)

Although lynching has become steadily less common, all but ending in 1969, political violence, by definition, should always include this act as part of any definition. The two terms should be used interchangeably.

Any study of political violence in the US should also study the act and politics of lynching.

As the act of lynching occurs within clear and easily recognizable political ideologies, we may reasonable attribute the majority of these crimes to the American "right."
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 1:00:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
HOW POLITICAL CHANGE CAN CAUSE A FEELING OF ALIENATION

Political violence seems to occur in tandem with political change. To the extent that this change creates unease and fear in certain populations, it will inspire a commensurate level of politicalized anger, which often develops into actualized violence.

The connection between political, cultural and/or social change in inspiring heightened levels of violence is well established, and cannot be commented on at length here. It may constitute a "chicken or the egg" argument, as precise causation is unclear: does culture-wide violence spark political change, or does political change create the conditions for violence?

(Footnote: Upon conducting research for this paper, it is the opinion of the author that the question does not need to be addressed directly or comprehensively in order to offer valid findings in seeking a mechanistic cause for politicalized violence. The reason for this opinion is that the political ideologies described here have been formed relatively recently. This allows a study of political violence to ignore much of the political landscape in America prior to 1932. [Include as footnote? 1])

According to Thoms, Oskar N. T. and Ron, James, in the work, Do Human Rights Violations Cause Internal Conflict? (Human Rights Quarterly - Volume 29, Number 3, August 2007, pp. 674-705) The authors argue that:

"Discrimination and violations of social and economic rights function as underlying causes of conflict, creating the deep grievances and group identities that may, under some circumstances, motivate collective violence. Violations of civil and political rights, by contrast, are more clearly identifiable as direct conflict triggers. Abuse of personal integrity rights is associated with escalation, and intermediately repressive regimes appear to be most at risk. Denial of political participation rights is associated with internal conflict because full democracies experience less conflict. Yet democratization itself is dangerous, since regime transition is also a major conflict risk factor."

In other words, as political changes occur, groups that feel a strong connection to the old or existing systems will often feel that their rights are being infringed in some way. The changes may cause a feeling of alienation. This can be caused by a variety of mechanistic factors:

As groups attempt to find support for the political changes they wish to see occur, they will often make the case that the current state of affairs is intolerable. Political change is usually called "reform" by advocates. This effort often results in the vilification of the groups that have an interest in maintaining the status quo.

If the reform effort finds official political support, then often the vilification of conservative groups will seem to become state-sanctioned. This creates a de-democratizing effect on these populations, as they feel not only disenfranchised, but also fear that the government has adopted a "predatory" stance against them.

If the reform effort finds large-scale public support, the groups who wish to preserve the existing system will often feel that any democratic recourse is impossible, further enlarging the sense of de-Democratization and alienation.

As no democratic solution seems likely, the risk that violence - rather than political methods - will be used increases. Moreover, a feeling of paranoia, an almost agoraphobic dread is developed as public opinion begins to blacken the reputation of the beloved old system.

Other-than Democratic means, but still nonviolent approaches, such as the use of party bosses and court decisions are often embraced by groups that feel that they are a victimized minority without recourse to regular democratic methods. Violence does not seem to be preferred by any mainstream American group, even if extra-Democratic methods are unavailable.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 1:02:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
MECHANICS OF LIBERALSIM AND CONSERVATIVISM IN THE UNITED STATES AS IT IMPACTS SOCIAL/POLITICAL CHANGE AND VIOLENCE

A great many of the characteristics of modern American political ideological factions date from 1929-1980, with the bulk of these coming into their modern form during the "Great Society" programs of the Johnson administration.

(Great Society programs and events that partially identify and divide the modern American political factions include federal funding of education, gun control vs. gun rights, Medicare and Medicaid, militarism vs. pacifism, and the Civil Rights Act)

In the United States over the past 90 years, almost all of the political programs identified as "reforms" - and adopted into law, have been championed by the organic, ad-hoc formation of an American "left wing," while being opposed by an equally organic "right wing."

A list of major political changes in the US from 1929-present is written below. It is not an exhaustive list, but is only meant to give the reader some idea of the scope of political changes, dates that these changes have occurred, and which faction supported/opposed them.

Each listing will include the name of the Bill, Act, or political change, a date when it was "most" enacted (at times, there is no single date) and a "group name" of the party that supported the measure. The author has exercised some editorial liberty in assigning this to the group that most closely represents our modern political definitions. Therefore, these should be considered a "rule of thumb" and not a strict definition.

Due to irreconcilable problems with the use of the "political spectrum," it is often impossible to describe political ideological camps in anything close to a modern sense prior to 1960.

Workmen"s Compensation Laws (in Maryland - 1902) Supported by "Progressives"

Federal Income Tax: (1913) supported by "Progressives" A reaction against the excesses of the Gilded Age.

17th Amendment to the US Constitution. (1913) supported by "Progressives" Allowed direct election of US Senators.

18th Amendment to the US Constitution (1919) Prohibition - supported by "Anti-Saloon League" and "Progressives" partly an anti-German immigrant law. This law cannot clearly be traced to modern American political ideological factions.

Anti Child Labor Laws and Women"s Suffrage (beginning in 1910), Supported by "liberals" and "Conservatives" These laws do not apply to modern political ideologies. "Progressives" of the time opposed women working long hours in factories, and child labor laws were in large part necessitated by the increasing number of state laws that made school attendance obligatory.

19th Amendment to the US Constitution (1920) supported by "Women"s Groups" This law cannot be traced to any modern political ideology. Although President Woodrow Wilson called for Women"s Suffrage as urgently needed for the war effort, President Wilson can not be called a liberal or Progressive in the modern sense.

New Deal Reforms - wide ranging reforms enacted from 1933-1935, supported by "Democrats."

Social Security Act (1935) supported by "Democrats" created a provision for pensions, unemployment insurance, and aid to blind, deaf, disabled, and dependent children.

Rural Electrification Act (1935) supported by "Democrats" Encouraged farmers to join cooperatives to bring electricity to farms.

Glass-Steagall Act (1933) Supported by "Democrats" Federally protected bank deposits to defend against bank failures.

The Clean Air Act (1963) Supported by "Democrats" limited air pollution.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 (1964) Supported by "Democrats" ended most forms of segregation, outlawed most forms of discrimination against women. Strongly opposed by American "Conservatives." Its passage led to numerous race riots and a wave of lynchings.

Food Stamp Act of 1964 (1964) Supported by "Democrats" Provided financial assistance to low income households to offset food costs.

The Head Start Program (1965) supported by "Democrats" Provides school for children in low income families prior to Kindergarten.

Job Corps (1964) supported by "Democrats" provided vocational training to teens and young adults.

National Endowment for the Arts (1965) supported by "Democrats" provides funding for the arts.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (1965) Supported by "Democrats" Outlawed many forms of voter discrimination.

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 (1986) Supported by "Republicans and Democrats" closed various tax loopholes and reduced the top marginal tax rate on upper incomes. Expanded the tax base.

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (1986) Supported by "Republicans and Democrats" drafted during the Regan Administration, the Act granted amnesty to millions of undocumented aliens.

The various partisan controversies of the Clinton/Bush/Obama presidencies are assumed to be understood by the reader. Generally, Republican presidents and legislative agendas have created unease among Democrats, and vice versa. However, the absence of single party control, except under the Democratic Party, has limited the number of legislative sessions that could be considered alarming to Democrats, and increased the number of such sessions that could be said to have alarmed Republicans.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 1:03:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
PARTISANSHIP AT PLAY IN INPIRING POLITICAL VIOLENCE

Only FDR, JKF, Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter had same-party control of the Legislature during their entire presidential terms. All of these were Democratic-left leaning Presidents. None of the Republicans over the past 70 years had enjoyed same-party control of the legislature throughout their entire terms in office.

This is important, because it greatly limits the number of legislative sessions that liberals have been forced to slow, stop or reverse a conservative political agenda, while at the same time greatly increasing the number of legislative sessions that conservatives may feel were antithetical to their beliefs.

This means that over the past 70 years, the American "left" has sought to create political/cultural and social changes, while the American "right" has sought to limit, prevent or reverse those changes. This creates a critical precedent, where the "left" is identified culturally as advocates of change and reform, while the "right" is identified as defenders of the current or a traditional system. (This dynamic may be unique to American politics, which limits the usefulness of comparing US political systems to those in other nations.)

As "liberals" and "progressives" are often thought of as "proponents of political/cultural change," these groups are usually a) considered responsible for creating the conditions for, or directly causing a given political change, and b) as the advocates of change, these groups do not feel the same level of anxiety regarding the possible consequences of the political changes that are occurring.

These two factors, when combined, cause them to be "blamed" for any perceived possible negative effects of change, and their lack of unease causes an equal degree of lack of politicized anger and violence - that would have otherwise been caused by the particular change in question.

Therefore, they are far more likely to have politically caused, or to be perceived to have caused, the fear-anger-violence cycle among right wing groups, and be victimized by the resulting violence than they are to be the perpetrators of said violence.

"Left wing" violence does occur, and follows the same basic pattern.

Some examples of this include the "Rodney King Race Riots" and the Watts Race Riots. A longer lasting example would include the formation of the Black Panther Party, which according to its founders, was intended as "self defense" following a spate of well-publicized hate crimes against African Americans. As the violence against blacks resulting from unease regarding the civil rights movement declined, so did membership in the Black Panther Party.

According to these findings, one of the reasons for the success of the efforts of Dr Martin Luther King, JR. in the civil rights movement was that he presented a non-threatening adversary for his political opponents. He made himself too vulnerable to allow attacks against him to be seen as "heroic. " To blunt this, his non-threatening status was repeatedly assailed by the right, with constant and withering accusations of communism and sexual perversion. His critics regularly portrayed him either as a deep-eyed villain in league with communist powers, or as an innocent fool, who was too simple to understand the consequences of his actions.

"On Sept. 28, 1962, as King spoke at a church in Birmingham, Ala., white power advocate Roy James jumped onto the stage and smashed King in the face. King staggered as James then slugged him on the side of the head, following with two kidney punches. As James hit him again, King dropped his hands and put up no resistance. As King"s aides led James away, King calmly returned to his talk."

"That was characteristic: He was constantly under threat of death, but continued his work."

Dr. King was indisputably among the foremost architects of modern American liberalism. He and other highly respected liberal leaders and thinkers regularly counseled against the use of violence in the nascent political movement.

King absolutely opposed delusions among revolutionaries in the New Left who thought that armed struggle might accomplish some good ends. He always said nonviolent ends required nonviolent means. "

( Source:
http://www.thenewstribune.com...)
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 1:04:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The example set by King and many other early modern liberal thinkers such as Alfred Nobel, John Lennon, and Albert Einstein may have been influential. Nonviolence and pacifism are among the leading traits of the political philosophy of modern liberalism. However, these traits are not without counterparts on the right, and therefore, cannot be considered as part of any explanation.

Studies on the neurophysiology of conservatives and liberals - although not sufficiently replicated and potentially anomalous, partly back up these assertions. (Depending on the results of future studies, that liberals are either normal - or unusually courageous, and that conservatives are either normal, or unusually less courageous.

The mainstream conservative should not be held to account for the aberrant behavior of extremist elements that s/he does not agree with. The most that can be made of extremism on either side is a demonstration of "tendency." That is, if the subject continues a process of over-adherence (to principles that may have been fully rejected) then an imbalance may occur with the result being X.

The over-identification of the more centrist adherents to a given ideology with its radical or fringe elements, especially criminal or deranged individuals, should not be carried too far. However, the political philosophies, tactics and traits themselves may be at least partly held to account if they demonstrate a clear propensity for radicalizing otherwise normal members, or for recruiting criminal and deranged elements from the larger society. For example, a recent case where a man was seeking a woman who was intent on committing suicide to meet and have sex with him first was considered by a court to have broken the law in using the Internet in an effort to locate such a woman. The court found that although he was not the cause of the mental or emotional instability that might cause suicidal behavior, he was clearly attempting to recruit and exploit these infirmities.

The presence of radical, uncontrollable or criminal elements within a given organization can often be considered detrimental. For example, the Ron Paul Presidential Campaign removed a volunteer, Ashley Todd, after it was discovered that she had attempted to infiltrate a rival campaign in order to learn secret campaign strategies. In October of 2008, Todd cut a letter "B" into her own forehead and falsely accused a black supporter of Barack Obama who she said was enraged by her John McCain for President bumper sticker. This story was widely carried by Republican friendly news outlets. Once discovered as a hoax, the incident became an embarrassment for the McCain campaign, and a major liberal talking point.

An example of radicals being driven out of one party, and welcomed into the rival camp, may be found on July 2, 1964, after President Lyndon B Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act - outlawing most forms of racial segregation. After the signing, he remarked, "We (Democrats) have lost the South for a generation." He was wrong; the South switched from solidly Democrat to Republican overnight - and all indications are that it will remain so for far more than one generation. A mass exodus of "blue dog" conservative southern Democrats out of the Democratic Party and into the Republican Party ensued, and with them many fringe elements, including several hate groups. The passage of sweeping gun control legislation, the creation of Medicare and Medicaid, greater federal funding for education and the "War on Poverty," also during the Johnson Presidency, set the template for Republican / Democratic conflicts to the present day, as opponents of these measures were no longer made welcome inside the Democratic Party.

This period of vast and sweeping changes helped to radicalize many elements of American society against civil rights, and many of these radicalized groups settled in the Democratic Parties' political rival party - The Republican Party.

In order to create the conditions for political change, a climate of eager anticipation for the desired changes must be maintained. This is because creating change is often far more difficult than maintaining the existing system. Any time a reform of any kind is proposed, it will encounter forces that have found merit in the old customs. Even minor changes will require effort, and often extraordinary ingenuity and perseverance in order to be realized.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 1:05:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Therefore, the norm is that in order for a political change to occur, Americans must become convinced that the changes are much needed "reforms" to the current system. They must willfully engage in the hard work and sacrifice that will be demanded if they wish to see the changes take place.

A climate of hope and happy anticipation for the upcoming change must grow so great that it can overcome the automatic, entrenched opposition - and the equally automatic and entrenched defenders of the current system.

The eternal enemy of change is fear and dread. In times of great national angst, Americans become resistant to many changes. If change is still required, for example - the abolition of slavery, the economic reforms during the Presidencies of FDR and LBJ, during a time of national anxiety, these changes are often "forced" by national leaders who have acquired the political means to do so.

This creates a feeling that the national leader in question is a "usurper" of some sort, a tyrant. Because they "took" the power to enact a change that many Americans were uneasy about. This perception can quickly trigger the fear/anger/violence spiral.

If an organized effort wishes to slow, or prevent altogether, some attempted political or social change, an effective tactic is to create the feeling of dread that generally poisons and derails any large-scale political change.

Therefore, if a group of citizens desires some political change, they must cultivate a spirit of reform, of happy anticipation and hope. They should present the desired change as the logical solution to a problem.

If a group wishes to prevent some political change, they should cultivate a climate of fear and dread. The changes must be demonstrated to have far-reaching and negative consequences.

The previously discussed inconsistencies inherit with the use of the "political spectrum" make the non-subjective use of easy terms such as "liberal/progressive" and "conservative/right wing" extremely problematic. However, a standard understanding of the terms implies that often "progressives" desire more or less constant political, social and cultural change, and "conservatives" more or less wish to conserve the existing order.

A side effect of having one popular political ideology that constantly advocates changes, and another that constantly advocates preserving tradition may lie at the heart of the tendency of one side to become far more violent than the other.

As the proponents of "change," the progressive faction will rarely be well advised to encourage anger, fear and hate, and thereby will be expected to trigger the fear/anger/violence cycle far less often.

As the defenders of the "old order," conservatives may be expected to warn against any changes to that system

Although any group seeking to defend an old order, or slow, or stop completely a proposed social/cultural/political change will generally follow this pattern of behavior, it is not universal to the right. The mechanistic reasons for this apply equally to any groups when they wish to halt or slow a proposed change.

Liberals are also prone to entering the fear/anger/violence cycle as well. A useful case study of this is provided in the Kerner Commission report to LBJ following a rash of race riots in the north. According to the commission report, the riots were caused in part by institutional racism. He went on to suggest that this "separate but unequal" system was to blame for a condition of desperate poverty, which created a prevalent feeling of vulnerability and inferiority. This feeling of extreme vulnerability may have triggered the fear/anger/violence chain reaction that led to the riots.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 1:05:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The reason that American conservatives have so often been the perpetrators of political violence is not necessarily symptomatic of American conservative ideology. A simpler explanation involves pointing out that the movement's role over the past 70 years has been largely to prevent sometimes sweeping changes to the political and cultural system. This has largely required conservative advocates to adopt a strategy that emphasizes the possible negative consequences of these changes, which can lead to an "appeal to fear" message that - if taken too literally - may trigger a fear/anger/violence panic among right wing groups.

Again, this reaction to political and cultural change is largely resistant to easy right/left classification. If sufficiently panicked, any group or ideology will exhibit signs of anger and hostility, sometimes leading to violence. Moreover, the definitions of "left wing and right wing" are imprecise at best, and should only be used for superficial reference. It is not, therefore, a goal of this paper to ascribe direct causation of political violence to a single ideology or political party.

However, the unusually high incidence of such violence among populations generally considered "right wing" or "conservative" is sufficiently widespread to warrant some explanation.

Although it would be beyond the scope of this paper to offer an exhaustive explanation, a valid case can be made that some level of actualized violence can result from an overemphasis on "appeal to fear" messaging. A useful illustration of this can be found in increased gun sales during a highly publicized crime-wave, as residents seek to protect themselves.

Another comparison can be made between the effect that "right wing" radio and television is having in the current political climate, and the panic sparked by the Orson Wells radio broadcast of "The War of the Worlds."

This trend has alarmed many "left wing" groups in America, and therefore, has the potential of creating a reciprocation of violence, as right wing terrorism of left wing groups causes the radicalization of many on the left. A cycle of tit-for tat violence could cause a condition that is self-sustaining, and possibly even separated from politics.

The overwhelming likelihood is that such a climate would frustrate any efforts to enact social or political change, and therefore, would greatly harm any group - right or left - that would be expected to advocate for changes to the current system.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 1:06:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Conclusions:
1. Political violence, like almost every other form of violence, is a fear-based response to a perceived threat.
2. Groups that wish to preserve an existing social order against change should be expected to warn of negative, far reaching, and/or unintended consequences of that change.
2a. Advocates of change must overcome many obstacles in order to accomplish their goals. They must maintain high levels of energy and hope about the changes they wish to enact, which argues against creating a climate of fear and dread.
3. If an "appeal to fear" message is too successful, it may trigger the fear/anger/violence reaction that causes political violence.
4. As this fear message is normally fed by those forces that wish to avoid change, this cycle can be assumed to be triggered by anti-change forces.
5. Political violence that results from the fear/anger/violence spiral is not ideologically specific. The American "left," has for the past 60 years advocated for most of the large-scale changes to our political system, which requires the strategic use of hopeful, reformist rhetoric. As conservatives have been far more likely to oppose the large changes over the past 60 years, they have adopted an angrier, fearful rhetorical style.

6. The most common form of political violence over the past 130 years have been lynchings. This act of political terrorism represents such a massive share of all forms of political violence, that the two terms - "political violence" and "lynching" should be considered synonymous. Any attempt to understand the nature and causes of political violence, must examine the nature and causes of lynching, as well as the effect of political change.
LevelWithMe
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 2:46:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://wordpress.com...
http://www.blogger.com...
http://www.livejournal.com...
http://www.tumblr.com...

Really though, you could have at least uploaded it as a pdf, txt or doc file somewhere and linked us. No sense in breaking everything up relatively arbitrarily based on the character limit. That's just the whip cream on the tldr pie.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 8:51:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 2:46:49 AM, LevelWithMe wrote:
http://wordpress.com...
http://www.blogger.com...
http://www.livejournal.com...
http://www.tumblr.com...

Really though, you could have at least uploaded it as a pdf, txt or doc file somewhere and linked us. No sense in breaking everything up relatively arbitrarily based on the character limit. That's just the whip cream on the tldr pie.

I could have; it exists elsewhere already, and I had it saved as a "Pages" document. I did not want to do this, because I wanted to post the entire rant here.
Political-Risk
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 1:08:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think it is a very good, highly detailed essay. If you want some more research material, you can use http://i-strategic.com... . It not only gives an idea about the political scenario of a country but also can know its potential risks