Logical Reasoning Questions for CLAT | QB Set 32

The long simmer of political violence in America

It has been close to five decades since a presidential candidate was injured or assassinated in an attack in the United States. The bid on former U.S. President Donald Trump at an election rally in Butler County, Pennsylvania, on July 13, has shocked people, but there have been at least 15 assassination attempts on presidential nominees and Presidents; five resulted in deaths. This indicates how political violence is inextricably linked with American society and has come to cut across America’s partisan political divide. The attempt on Mr. Trump’s life comes at a time when the nation is more deeply polarised and divided along racial, cultural and ideological lines than it has ever been in American history. Amidst growing tribalism and polarisation, political violence has found its way back into American politics. However, in recent times, it has come to take a more partisan character.

A shift

The 1960s and 1970s were a tumultuous time in American political history, marked by the most significant political violence and violence. During this period, the nation was shocked by the assassination attempts and successful assassination of presidential nominees (see graphic). It was also a time of social justice uprisings, violence against federal institutions, and civil rights activism. A significant proportion of the violence from this era was not ideologically polarised and focused on female suffrage, rights of the working class, and racial equality. In comparison, today, the incidence of violence is polarised along clearly marked partisan lines.

In recent times, however, extremist beliefs and a political Manichean outlook have orchestrated acts of political violence. Some were conducted by individuals who do not identify with any extremist group and have acted in a more partisan than ideological manner. For instance, in 2011, an Arizona Democrat, Gabby Giffords and 17 others were shot by a gunman outside a supermarket for inciting intense backlash against Democrats for encouraging hatred. In 2017, a man who was a ‘supporter’ of Bernie Sanders opened fire on Republican whip, Steve Scalise, and Congressional Republican baseball team. And in 2022, a man attempted to murder Justice Brett Kavanaugh for his views on gun control and reproductive rights.

Causes and reasons

Today, a minuscule, but not inconsequential, number of American citizens endorse the use of violence to forward political ideas. In October 2023, research conducted at the University of California by the violence prevention research programme suggested that 8% of the respondents believed political violence could sometimes be justified. Another study on American citizen’s opinions has noted that attitudes toward violence and violent means for political ends have been shifting. Trump himself repeatedly justified the use of violence, and politicians have been found to use words and actions to dehumanise opponents and incite followers. Despite only a small fraction endorsing violence, the highly competitive nature of elections since 2010 and the crystallisation of partisan divisions have contributed to the increase in violence. The divisive and polarised way in which many debates are conducted today has also served to entrench the public in their ideological silos. This has led to the creation of distinct in- and out-groups in which the circulation of dehumanising rhetoric and a Manichean world view has created a readiness for the use of force against the other side.

Rather than containing these tendencies, American electoral institutions and party politics have sharpened these ideological and policy differences. Since 2016, both Republicans and Democrats have morally disengaged with each other and discovered ways to sideline violence rather than condone it. Under the garb of plausible deniability, politicians have played a double game, inciting and encouraging political violence. Politicians, particularly when the audience for politicians has broadened, have driven cycles for public polarisation while dehumanising rhetorical exhortations and violence cycles for political actors to boost voter intensity and engagement. However, the most permissive environment for the spread of political violence has occurred with the lack of institutional constraints on violence and with new voter coalitions increasingly able to sway executive and legislative power. Political differences that were once resolved through political violence. Further erosion of institutional and legal guardrails against political violence by Republican politicians have hollowed the voting influence of state legislatures.

What can be done

In conclusion, in the immediate aftermath of the bid on Mr Trump, the bi-partisan condemnation of political violence by leaders across party lines could serve as a necessary and critical step to heal and unite society. However, in the medium and long term, only systemic reforms in the electoral process and even-handed and transparent condemnation of political violence by politicians that will bridge the growing rift in a polarised society.

Question -1) What is the primary concern highlighted by the author regarding political violence in America?

A) The increase in violence against law enforcement agencies.

B) The ideological shift in political violence from the 1960s and 1970s to the present.

C) The involvement of foreign entities in American political violence.

D) The partisan nature of recent political violence and its impact on American society.

Question -2) According to the article, which of the following events is cited as an example of political violence involving ideological motives?

A) The assassination attempt on former U.S. President Donald Trump.

B) The attack on Gabby Giffords in 2011.

C) The Capitol insurrection on January 6, 2021.

D) The murder attempt on Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Question -3) What does the author suggest as a long-term solution to political violence in America?

A) Increased funding for law enforcement agencies.

B) Stricter regulations on political campaigning.

C) Systemic reforms in the electoral process and fostering bipartisan condemnation of violence.

D) Establishment of a national task force to monitor political groups.

Question -4) What key factor does the author identify as contributing to the increase in political violence since 2010?

A) Economic recession and unemployment.

B) The highly competitive nature of elections and the crystallization of partisan divisions.

C) Increased immigration and demographic changes.

D) Technological advancements in communication.

Question -5) What proportion of respondents in the University of California research believed that political violence is justified in a democracy?

A) 2%     B) 7%     C) 8%     D) 10%

Question -6) How has the ideological character of political violence shifted from the 1960s and 1970s to the present day, according to the article?

A) It has shifted from being non-partisan to highly partisan.

B) It has become more focused on economic issues rather than social justice.

C) It has reduced in frequency and intensity.

D) It has remained largely unchanged in its motivations and targets.