Nathan Kalmoe on hateful rhetoric and political violence

Frederica Freyberg:
We’ve all heard the hateful political rhetoric. Much of it these days, directed at migrants coming over the southern U.S. border. Is it bluster, as some apologists would say, or dangerously tipping toward political violence? We turn to UW-Madison political scientist Nathan Kalmoe, author of the book “Radical American Partisanship: Mapping Violent Hostility” and thanks for being here.

Nathan Kalmoe:
Thanks so much for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:
So in your book, you discuss what you call moral disengagement that is vilifying out-groups, hyping the morality of in-groups, minimizing harms and righteous ends that justify aggressive means. Is that what’s happening here?

Nathan Kalmoe:
It is. Yeah. The language that we’re hearing that’s targeting migrants is dehumanizing. Dehumanization is a form of moral disengagement and what’s dangerous about dehumanizing rhetoric is that it creates excuses for people to harm groups that they dislike. And so we see this historically. We see this cross-nationally that marginalized group when they’re targeted with dehumanizing language, are more subject to various kinds of harms, including violence against the community.

Frederica Freyberg:
In your book, you say that hyper political polarization doesn’t diagnose the problem. It disguises it. What do you mean by that?

Nathan Kalmoe:
Yeah, Dr. Lilly Mason and I feel like the polarization framework that we often hear so much about is really inappropriate when it’s applied to these kinds of contexts, because the problem here isn’t that we’re divided. It’s what we’re divided over. And in particular, that one position in this case is, is a kind of racist hostility towards migrants, towards people of color more broadly. And that’s just not a one side versus the other side. It’s something that goes against some of the fundamental values of equality and freedom in our country. And so when we focus on polarization, it creates this false moral equivalence saying that, or at least implying that both sides should find some middle ground and really, we shouldn’t be compromising on matters that are about the equality and the humanity of other people.

Frederica Freyberg:
So we’ve all heard of the so-called replacement theory, whereby current minority populations will replace the majority white status holders in the U.S. Is this the genesis of potential violent hostility?

Nathan Kalmoe:
Yes. This false and racist conspiracy theory is quite dangerous because it creates a sense of existential threat in people who have more of an us versus them mentality and, and feel like diversity, instead of being a strength for our country, is a threat to them personally. And this kind of conspiracy theory pushes people towards more extreme actions. And again, it forms a kind of vilification that that justifies in their minds, that rationalizes harming these groups, including sometimes engaging in violent threats or violent actions, as we’re seeing in Ohio right now.

Frederica Freyberg:
What cues are there from history about how ordinary citizens can be swept up in this?

Nathan Kalmoe:
Yeah, this kind of thinking, these kinds of actions are unfortunately, historically common. This is the same kind of thinking and rhetoric that justified and perpetuated slavery and Jim Crow in the United States. It’s the same kind of thinking of white supremacy that justified ethnic cleansing of Native Americans, of excluding and discriminating against Catholic immigrants and Asian immigrants throughout our history. And so the, the danger is that on the one hand, it gets people to support policies of government that are really harmful and discriminatory against people who should be treated with humanity and equality. And it can also mobilize people, especially when they feel like they don’t have the kinds of outcomes that they want through the political system to turn to violence, and that violence can be perpetuated with or without the support of the broader government.

Frederica Freyberg:
In the current kind of political electoral scape, in terms of partisans, you say that partisans of both stripes have this kind of feeling of the other as evil?

Nathan Kalmoe:
Yeah. So in our public opinion surveys, we measured extreme hostility. We felt that that prior previous scholarship had not fully mapped the levels of extreme hostility. And so we asked about a number of forms of moral disengagement, including feeling like the other side is evil. Basically, what we found starting in 2017 was about 40% of Democrats and Republicans had that view of their political opponents. That number has risen, at least among Republicans, in the years since. Last year, our survey showed about 60% of Republicans were endorsing this view that Democrats are evil. Still, about 40 to 45% of Democrats were saying the same thing. I think that’s a worrisome level of political hostility. But I think it’s important to keep in mind the distinction between thinking of people as evil and thinking of actions and ideas as evil, and the distinction there is that while it’s probably inappropriate to see people as being wholly evil, they’re certainly actions, including racist violence that could fairly be characterized as evil and that should be condemned in pretty strong terms, if not evil.

Frederica Freyberg:
All right. Very interesting. Nathan Kalmoe, thank you so much.

Nathan Kalmoe:
Thanks so much for having me.