An application of political analysis

This was written before the appalling widespread egregious excesses of police and paramilitaries in the USA over recent months, particularly in response to the BLM protests: this article (by others, not me) updates that, and highlights the need to be ready for mass nonviolent civil resistance - of the type where mothers have successfully and nonviolently forced violent thugs back into buildings, for instance.

*** 

As well as many other books, I have been reading "The Craft of Political Analysis for Diplomats", by Raymond F. Smith (pub. Potomac Books, Washington, 2011, ISBN 978-1-59797-730-2, Amazon).

I'm only 60% of the way through it, but want to have a go at using some of the ideas - specifically, among other political forces, the attributes of intensity and violence of conflict (p. 51).

After describing conflict as the engine of social change, the author introduces two axes to assess conflict (which can include discussion, so this is not only referring to physically violent conflict):

• the violence of the conflict, which can range from the aforementioned discussions to the aforementioned physical violence; and 
• intensity - which is a measure of the involvement and energy of those involved.

The author gives excellent examples and explanation of these, but I'll limit my exposition to the two dot points above ☺If you want more, buy the book.

Now, keeping in mind that I don't live in the USA and thus am relying on what I can discern from the media, the situation I'm interested in applying these two measures to, is:

What happens if POTUS45 stays in power and loses next year's election?

I have read some comments expressing fears around violence if that happens - quite apart from what POTUS45 would do.

Those members of the public who support POTUS45 undoubtedly have a very high level of intensity. The reasons for that intensity are complex (although too often for racist or misogynistic reasons), and it seems clear that, no matter what POTUS45 does, at least some of that intensity will remain.

Those who oppose POTUS45 (and I am one, to admit a potential bias in this exercise - and I don't live in the USA) have a range of intensities, but as times goes on, the intensities are increasing for more people.

So it is likely that, whatever the result is of the 2020 US Presidential election, there will be very strong reactions on both sides.

But does that mean there will be physical violence? (I am ignoring the very real, incredibly harmful, emotional, mental and moral violence that POTUS45 is committing and causing others to commit for the purposes of this exercise.)

I think it is fair to say that physical violence is unlikely on the part of those who oppose POTUS45. If POTUS45 wins there will likely be protests, and verbal abuse, but whether that escalates to violence depends on how it is handled by police and POTUS45 supporters (and whether POTUS45 says anything churlish or offensive). Sadly, the USA has a history of violent riots, and of lynchings and other mob violence. (On the other hand, it also has Dr Martin Luther King, Jr., Cure Violence, and key roles in the Paris Pact, the United Nations, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.)

I also consider it likely that most POTUS45 supporters would also refrain from violence. They may be bitter, they would would be angry, and they may withdraw from the US political process - amongst the elites who support POTUS45, there would likely be legal challenges, but, despite the intensity, most would not resort to physical violence.

But I'm not convinced that would be the case for all POTUS45 supporters.

We have already had the situation where one POTUS45 supporter mailed pipe bombs without triggers to critics of POTUS45, and the murder at Charlottesville.

At this point, I would comment that society as a whole has the strength in this situation. Yes, I know that doesn't fit on the axes, but people who feel they are in a position of strength are more likely to remain calm and react constructively - or forebear to react at all.

That means it is more likely those POTUS45 supporters who see him as an anti-establishment hero, who possibly feel disempowered anyway, would be more likely to express their anger through violent reactions.

I don't consider a civil war likely. Again, society has the strength, and the USA has lasted despite widespread violence in the past (even if it did take too long to learn vitally important lessons). The most likely violence would be at protests, which we've already seen, and I consider it inevitable that police and civil authorities would be planning for such possibilities (again, given the USA's history, the plans may not all be good, but there would be preparations that would contribute to containing violence - but not necessarily saving the lives of all involved).

Going back to the two axes, the USA has the stronger weapons for violence, even if some malcontents use guns or explosives.

I don't consider it likely that POTUS45 supporters would organise a widespread violent uprising, but, even if they did, I suspect the FBI would likely be monitoring that and pre-emptive action would be taken.

To sum up:

• intensity is high on both sides - the POTUS45 supporters, and those who want POTUS45 removed from power; 
• the means for both enacting violence and preventing violence are higher on the part of the US government, and thus the "weapons" available to POTUS45 supporters are likely to be either those of spontaneous choice (as happened at Charlottesville), or asymmetrical conflict - i.e., violent extremism (as happened with the pipe bombs).

Sadly, I consider it likely there will be some, largely isolated violence after next year's US Presidential election, and it is possible some people will be injured or even killed, but I don't consider large scale violence likely.

So having got through the above, I've now done an internet search, and here is some of what others think:

• POTUS45 warned of violence if his party lost the "mid-terms" (see here, here, and here): they did, but there wasn't any widespread violence (that I know of); 
• there were fears of violence during voting in the 2016 US Presidential election - see here (not widespread, that I know of, although there were problems); 
• there were warnings of violence if POTUS45 was elected - see here, for instance (sadly, came true); 
• the importance of elections both being and being seen to be fair - see here;
• this, which starts from the fears of a former POTUS45 "fixer" (I think his comments are where I first came across these fears), and examines some of what could happen; 
• this assessment of POTUS45 supporters is concerning (I've been generic in my comments, as not all POTUS45 supporters are white supremacists, but I suspect all white supremacists are POTUS45 supporters); and
• concerning comments about the prospect of violence - and POTUS45's encouragement of that here and here.

There were various discussion threads on this, but I was looking for more mainstream sources.

I also found this, raising concerns about what happens if POTUS45 is impeached.

Having read those additional articles, I still consider anything like a civil war or insurrection unlikely, but there is a chance of violence from some of POTUS45's supporters if he loses the election.

If he is impeached, he becomes a martyr, and the situation becomes more complex, but I consider the likely outcomes the same: the USA will survive, but it is likely to experience violent events.

For anyone who wants to prevent - or even minimise - that violence, I suggest engage in persuasion as best you can, and study the techniques of Cure Violence, and writers such as Paul K Chappell. The potential harm can be addressed.

PS - for a historical comparison, look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLm1gWnlcYw and the related episodes.