Commentary

Mott: Want to end political violence? Try friendship.

By on • ( 17 Comments )
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

by Meg Mott, Constitution Wrangler

With an increase in political violence across the nation, one worries what could happen in Vermont. Do our legislators need more security? Are our public officials at risk of attack? The impulse is to focus on safety measures alone. But that strategy doesn’t address the root cause of the problem. Partisan leaders are quick to denounce the violence on the other side while staying quiet when faced with violence from their side. As long as leaders continue to dehumanize their opponents and excuse their allies, political violence will persist.

Support for political violence has recently surged amongst Democrats. A recent op/ed in the New York Times, reported that “40 percent of Democrats supported the use of force to remove Mr. Trump from presidency and about 25 percent of Republicans supported the use of military to stop protests against Trump’s agenda.” Robert Pape, the political scientist at the University of Chicago who conducted the survey, urged leaders to do more. “American political leaders need to cross their political divides and make joint statements (and ideally joint appearances).” It’s not enough to hold your own press conference. You need to hold one with your opponent. 

After the shootings in Minnesota, both the Democratic Governor and the Republican President decried the actions of the gunman. Each condemned the use of violence in no uncertain terms. But together they did not stand. Had the Governor and the President stood in front of the same podium and treated each other with basic courtesy, partisans on both sides would have seen that there could be an alternative to violence. 

Convincing leaders that it is in everyone’s best interest to share the spotlight is a big ask. Politicians in both parties score big dollars when they denounce their opponent as Marxist or Fascist or some other variant of Evil. “If my opponent wins,” says one side, “you won’t have a country anymore.” “If he gets back in office,” says the other side, “you won’t have a democracy.” If the goal is raking in donations, these are profitable sentences. But if the goal is reducing political violence, those statements are as effective as using a chain saw to slice butter.

The good news is that people don’t actually like violence. Assassinations and kidnapping tend to sour the stomach. Indeed, there have been cases in which a horrific attack was just what it took to get leaders to cross the political divide. 

After two women were killed by an assassin at two Boston abortion clinics in 1994, leaders from three pro-choice and three pro-life groups agreed to meet. The mediators set the bar very low: meet four times, in private, with no expectation of resolving the abortion debate. The only goal was to better understand the reasoning of their opponent. Each leader assumed that at the end of the year they would go their separate ways. 

But that’s not what happened. Instead, one year turned into five and an entirely new predicament emerged.  The longer they met, the harder it became to explain why they were meeting. How could they justify spending so much time talking with their opponents? Didn’t their donors count on them to condemn the other side? 

Eventually they issued a joint statement, entitled “Talking with the Enemy,” published in the Boston Globe on the twenty-eighth anniversary of Roe v. Wade. In it they described their initial concerns, their enduring disputes, and the fruits of their conversations. 

These clandestine conversations, they explained,  “made our thinking sharper and our language more precise.” Through listening and disputing, they became “wiser and more effective leaders.” By avoiding “being overreactive and disparaging to the other side,” they became better at self-control. And most interestingly of all, these deep deliberations did not change anyone’s mind. “While learning to treat each other with dignity and respect, we have all become firmer in our views about abortion.” What changed is how they thought about their opponents.

In the 1990s, leaders could afford to take five years to bridge the political divide. With the current levels of support for political violence, we don’t have that kind of time.

To our Vermont leaders in Washington and Montpelier, if you are concerned about your personal safety, consider making friends with your enemy. Find a topic that you both care about, such as providing for foster children or fighting malaria abroad. Schedule a press conference and let your defenses drop. Laugh with each other as you disagree about policy differences. Let the disagreements be the glue that binds your friendship. Show the world that politicians can have very strong differences about public policy and still treat each other with respect.

Epilogue: After their essay was published in the Globe, the pro-choice and pro-life leaders held a joint press conference. Assuming that only one or two journalists would show up, they were met with a room filled with reporters. The reporters had lots of questions about the process, how they learned to trust one another, and how they dealt with their disagreements. The leaders were honest about their enduring differences and their newfound respect for each other. At the end of the press conference, they received a standing ovation.

Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Categories: Commentary

17 replies »

  1. False equivalency alert:

    ‘…New York Times, reported that “40 percent of Democrats supported the use of force to remove Mr. Trump from presidency and about 25 percent of Republicans supported the use of military to stop protests against Trump’s agenda.” ‘

    ‘Nuf said. The whole premise is false. And the exposure of the entrapment operation that was J6 will put to rest these ridiculous “pot, meet kettle,” arguments.

    (And I’d be willing to bet the quoted poll is BS; Just 25% of Republicans support crowd control???…)

    The NYT has zero credibility.

  2. The root off all this political violence can trace it’s origin to the establishment by marxist, snowflake a-holes of the concept of the “microaggression”. This concept reasons that when you express yourself, even within the lawful confines of the First Amendment, someone may be triggered or feel offended. That feeling of offense can result in stress and anxiety that induces measurable physiologic harm. Since you have “harmed” the snowflake by your expression, they now are entitled to bring harm to you, even through physical violence. In a nutshell, if you wear a MAGA hat, someone who suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome has the moral justification to hit you in the head with a 2 by 4. This is the deranged and pathological thought process of the left, and it is used to silence free speech and justify their violent actions.

  3. From a previous post:
    Re: Massachusetts School District Will Exclude Unvaccinated Students This Fall –Massachusetts lawmakers consider ending religious exemption for school vaccines.

    Is ‘Regulatory Capture’ coming to a school district near you?

    Re: “consider making friends with your enemy.”

    But what do you do when your ‘enemy’ insists that their safety concerns are more relevant than yours? How do we resolve the distinction between one side’s claim that the other’s mere existence is dangerous to their health and safety?

    Will you peacefully stand by and allow yourself or your children to be vaccinated with an untested, unproven vaccine that some studies show is dangerous to long-term health?

    Will you stand by when your children are forced to attend a school that promotes gender dysphoria and the medical care that supports that dysphoria?

    Will you stand by when ‘The State’ confiscates your property to fund clearly bankrupt systems that benefit only those employed by or otherwise support ‘The State’?

    Must those of us who adamantly disagree with our neighbors, all while we agree to ‘live and let live’, be forced to leave our homes, as the Jews, Gypsies, and other non-Arian populations were when confronting the Nazis?

    The internal conflict we see today is more similar to that in the 1760s,1850s and 1930s than to the political distinctions of the last 75 years. These are not mere political divides we’re experiencing. They are existential.

    While I, for one, couldn’t care less about the idiosyncrasies of my neighbor’s life choices, some of them cannot be as courteous to me. If those who are hell-bent on imposing physical harm to me, my family, and my property, hell is inevitable.

    Agreeing to fight Malaria together won’t bridge the gap. Unless you have a better idea, ignore this present-day political distinction at your own risk.

  4. Meg Mott a constitutional wrangler? Well wrangle this. You can’t be friends with Marxists who want to take over our history, language and culture by subverting our constitution every chance they get to fundamentally change the United States into a Socialist/Communist country. The Commiecrat politicians that take an oath to uphold the constitution with no intent of doing so are the définition of domestic enemies.

  5. There is a young reporter exposing ALL the paid organizers on these protests, it’s all astro turf, he shows the same people over and over, getting paid, “organizing”…..

    organizing trouble is what its all about, power and money.

    want to know marxist kryptonite?

    Love your neighbor, love your enemy. Lead by Jesus Christ, who is lord, unlike these marxist trolls who think they are gods.

    Notice who is not welcome in many countries, countries that are “theocracies” and oligarchs, kings and despots?

    Why is that? Did a little deeper and you too can know the truth.

    There are two spirits in this world, choose wisely.

  6. By the way – come to Putney where the author has been the Town Moderator since 2015, and check out all the laughs, hugs, and good-natured exchange of opinions at those meetings. What a joke.

  8. I remember distinctly Debbie Wasserman Schults D- South FL stating “we will do anything to keep power”. That’s the Dems theme and action both in Congress and inVT State government. It’s universal in scope. Take it to the bank.

    Interesting analyzing the progression of people running for any office. They will state important values that they might perceive as values the electorate desires so they get voted in office and puff out their chests thinking what they believe can be achieved.

    Then comes the indoctrination into the government’s power controllers at their sit down meetings. It’s known if you want things and money for your state, do as we say and we depend on your vote to stay in power collectively. Your vote will be anti-people, anti-principals etc. Power controls government and people. If you become greedy, we’ll protect you. The reader knows some cases.

    Case in point, Shaheen D-NH. She was a retired teacher and ex governor., now not to run again. Seemed quite decent and honest. However when voting to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas (who is from Cuba) because the illegals pouring into the country, the Dems and Shaheen voted against impeaching Biden kissers.. Her state of NH and other states are in danger by gangs, freeloaders, etc as noted. She should be impeached along with others such Dems. There’s more, however—-

    Tyler Austin seems expose what Putney is like, it’s a bastion of Liberals. Nice town but I wouldn’t live there. I believe Meg Hanson did articles about some Putney people not guessing good or bad.

    Regarding the current bunch of Dems, I’d treat them like rattlesnakes and wouldn’t go to bed with them.

  9. Extremists on the left and on the right are guilty of using Inflammatory rhetoric. One easy step to lowering the political tension would be for contributors to this forum to refrain from name-calling those with views different from theirs. Using labels such as “Marxist”, “snowflake a-hole”, or “Commiecrat” serves no useful purpose.

    It is important to recognize when we feel insecure and acknowledge our vulnerabilities to address the underlying issues instead of relying on aggressive behavior toward others.

    • As an American who values our God-given freedoms, I reserve the right to use “marxist” as an insult, and to ridicule those with irrational ideological sensitivities as “snowflakes”. Sorry for any insult, but freedom of expression is Constitutionally guaranteed, and we have laws drawing the distinctions between speech and criminal threatening or violence.

    • A Marxist by any other name….. How is the term pejorative toward those who embrace Marxism as benign or salvific? I agree on the other terms, but the debate about Marxism — or identifying Marxism and calling out its pernicious impacts — is overdue and much needed to reverse its harms.

  10. What about Becca Balint disrespecting our law enforcement? She is a disgrace and puts officers as well as conservatives at risk. If she is the victim of physical violence, won’t she just be the scrappy little goose receiving what she advocated for the gander?