US presidential election 2024 and political violence

Those who think the 2024 US Presidential Election will be vastly different from the one in the past in terms of virulent polarisation and distinct possibility of political violence point to the two assassination attempts on Donald Trump within two months, and other disturbing signs like threats to the judiciary and resort to incendiary rhetoric as the election date gets close. Even four years down the Jan 6, 2020 attack on Capitol Hill, a large chunk, around 40%, of Republican supporters continue to believe that the 2020 vote was stolen from Trump and want their pound of flesh.

In an article in Foreign Policy on June 28, 2024 titled 'How Bad will Political Violence in the US Get?', Bruce Hoffman, senior fellow for counterterrorism and homeland security at the Council of Foreign Relations and a professor at Georgetown University, and Jacob Ware, a research fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University and DeSales University, write "although civil war is unlikely, other alarming scenarios are quite possible."

It is a measure of the divisiveness and tolerance for violence in the United States that the possibility of civil war looms so large over the 2024 presidential election - no matter which candidate wins.

Former President Trump's conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records has sharpened frictions, with threats to the judiciary and opponents immediately intensifying. Stew Peters, a far right political commentator, said on his channel that "our judicial system has been weaponized against the American people. We are left with no option but to take matters into our hands."

Meanwhile, assessments suggest that elements on the far left are also escalating militant threats. A call recently appeared on an anarchist website, heralding a day of action on July 4 targeting the ports of Seattle, Oakland, Los Angeles, Boston, New York, New Jersey and Baltimore.

These would-be violent extremists represent a microcosm of a US political landscape that is increasingly willing to tolerate violence. A survey conducted last year found that 23 per cent of Americans agreed with the statement that "because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country." Another more recent poll similarly found that 28 per cent of Republicans strongly agree that "Americans may have to resort to violence in order to get the country back on track."

Among gun owners in the United States, these sentiments are even more conspicuous. According to a survey conducted by the University of California, "about 42% of owners of assault-type rifles said political violence could be justified…"

As the United States approaches its November election, the risks of violence will thus rise. This should not be surprising. Historically, violence is actually quite common in the United States, especially during election seasons.

Trump's court cases, coupled with the insistence from both parties that - in Trump's words - "if we don't win this election, I don't think you're going to have another election in this country" have painted the election in existential terms.

As the United Nations Development Program concluded from its research into election violence around the world, "A common cause of election violence is that the stakes of winning and losing are growingly seen in a cataclysmic perspective."

Based on experience, the election itself will likely feature armed intimidation at polling places and threats levied against election officials. A database analysed by scholars Pete Simi, Gina Ligon et al found that threats against public officials are likely to soar to an all-time high in 2024. The data initially jumped in 2017, the year of Trump's victory.

In the weeks after the forthcoming election, depending on the results, extremists will likely direct their animus toward representatives of the government - especially on one of the many ceremonial dates accompanying the transition of power - such as the attack on US Capitol on Jan 6, for instance. An exact repeat of that attack is probably less likely; law enforcement agencies will be far better prepared this time.

Is the violence likely to lead to civil war? Trump and many of his allies have repeatedly warned that another election loss - coupled with forthcoming trial verdicts - would trigger one or lead to revolution in the United States. A post on Truth Social shared by Trump, for instance, suggested that 2024 might resemble 1776, "except this time the fight is not against the British, it's against communist Americans." Trump has warned that his defeat would spark a "bloodbath" in this country.

It may be difficult to exactly prophecy political violence. Despite the warnings from scholars, policy pundits, journalists and others, civil war is in fact unlikely. Geographic distinctions between would-be political factions today run on urban-rural lines rather than north-south, robbing any potential seditious movement of the geographical safe haven it would need to engage in nationwide conflict. But political rhetoric and the proliferation of threats is almost certain to lead to some level of violence.

The United States finds itself in a security dilemma, where any defensive measures designed to safeguard the electoral process will likely be interpreted as an offensive strike - that is, to ensure a repeat electoral fraud.

Countermeasures will need to focus on education and law enforcement preparation. In particular, the administration may be best advised to champion education tools that reassure the US public about the resilience of its electoral system from hacking while also ushering digital literacy measures that might help protect Americans from disinformation and conspiracy theories shared online, including through artificial intelligence.

In particular in high-risk areas, which might include swing states, the administration should also consider raising the law enforcement presence to deter violent actors from targeting such locations. Successfully stopping violence, however, will require a bipartisan commitment to accept election results and publicly praise the integrity of the election and its many officials - which seem unrealistic at this stage.

Americans are therefore left with a political landscape defined by existential rhetoric and violent threats, with very little that the government can do to effectively counter these charges. Accordingly, the threat may be less of another civil war than of the total breakdown of the democratic electoral process that has defined the country since its creation.