Short-term thoughts for the American election: possibilities for unrest

Greetings from Sunday, November 3rd.  I’m writing this from the travel zone of airports, airplanes, Ubers, and hotels, as I head off to a presentation.  I’m writing in some haste.

This week is the American election day, obviously.  I’ve been writing a post about long-term trends embodied in the event, but wanted first to share thoughts on the short term.

There is a great deal of anxiety about civil unrest around the election.  We modeled something similar in our two election scenarios on the Future Trends Forum (Trump win; Harris victory). I’ve been writing about it here for a while, as some readers might remember: historical models, possibilities after Trump’s 2016 election, some pushback against Trump in 2018, that movie, opposition to DEI, those mysterious power station attacks (1, 2), the polycrisis, and American attitudes.  I’ve also brooded up possibilities of climate activism taking direct action in various ways.

Talk of unrest and violence is in the air.  A recent poll found many Americans worried about election dangers.

The reality of violence is scant so far, but present. Someone set fire to ballot boxes.  Arizona police arrested a man for shooting at election offices and amassing weapons. Philadelphia police arrested another man for threatening Republicans.  Police arrested a Florida man (oh yes) for waving a machete at voters.  A fight broke out between a South Carolina election worker and a would-be voter.  There is some number of threats being made, but it’s not clear how many and how serious each one is.

People are making plans in anticipation.   Homeland Security warned us about domestic violent extremists (DVEs). Some cities and states are hardening voting sites. Porland, Oregon’s police are ready for more brawling. Washington state’s governor has already activated part of their National Guard units; Nevada’s governor took a similar step. Additional security fencing appeared around major DC buildings, including the vice president’s residence. And insurance companies have been quietly sending business customers warnings of civil unrest.  Here’s one from The Hartford:

And here’s one from Allianz (whose products I’m using this week as I travel).  They issue a general warning:

We anticipate further challenges to come as we move through 2024 and beyond, particularly around election related SRCC [strikes, riots, and civil commotion] events. So many elections in one year raise concerns about the fueling of populism and polarization, with tensions potentially playing out in heightened civil unrest. Analysis from Allianz Research indicates that countries with a recent increase in social unrest will be at heightened risk of this around election time, although some countries with decreasing unrest might nonetheless have hidden vulnerabilities in the run-up to often disputed elections.

Then they zero in on the United States, drawing attention to Republican denials of election outcomes, violent incidents over the past few years, and rising disinformation.  The report cites an in-house staffer with a specific take on elections: “Any unrest around the November election is likely to be focused on the battleground states as well as the capital Washington DC.”

We could imagine violence playing out in various ways, depending on how the election proceeds and how we respond.  A Harris win might inspire MAGA people to trash Democrats or their locations, while a Trump win could inspire the same people to go after immigrants, or anti-Trumpers to protest in ways which end up violent.

Recent history provides many examples of potential violent actions: crowds storming a building, protesters fighting counter-protesters, groups targeting civilians, snipers taking out individuals, lone actors adding more violence to chaotic situations,

Violence could take place in battleground states, of course.  We might see a surprise when a non-battleground state shows a surprise outcome. And someone feeling themselves a political minority might act out from sheer extremity.

Meanwhile, governmental authorities could commit or encourage violence, either accidentally or deliberately.  It’s not hard to imagine a trigger-happy National Guard soldier shooting a protester, or a police officer, struck by a crowd-flung projectile, clouting a peaceful person with a club.  The Gaza protests have shown the friction around occupying spaces and buildings.  We could imagine Harris supporters, for example, demonstrating in a state building they accuse of hosting ballot destruction.  It might end peacefully.

That’s assuming the election concludes within a day.  It might not, as we’ve seen most recently in 2020 and 2000. An attenuated process expands the opportunities for violence, both by offering more time and new targets while emitting new justifications.  And we know from the January 6th riots that the election timeline really extends through late January, including all the arcane operations of the Electoral College process.

Candidate Trump has, naturally, increased the chances of violence by trash-talking the possibility of his defeat.  He has already called out fraud and theft; imagine what happens, should he not clearly win outright, when he names politicians, election officials, and locations.  Some of his supporters are proclaiming their readiness to fight.  Militias might act out, or gangs like the Proud Boys.

Of course, calls for action to different levels of explicitness could circulate on social media, tv news, and all forms of rumor mongering.  Remember how much we can capture, edit, and share through networked mobile devices.  Think, too, of how some foreign actors would try to accelerate chaos.

So far I’ve been thinking of individual scenes, localized fights, but history shows how small events can inspire others, building up ripples, growing in scale.  Think of, say, a riot in Phoenix, which participants livestream. People from neighboring states drive there to participate, while ardent activists in, say, Detroit, inspired by the outrage, trash property or their opponents. And so it grows.

We might experience intersections with other causes.  I doubt American climate activists will do anything this time, but could well be wrong.  After all, Trump presents a hideous threat to climate mitigation and adaptation, both at the national and global level. Gaza protests could strike out against a victorious Harris in order to hold her feet to the fire.

We could see extreme partisans seek each other out to fight, as we’ve seen in Portland for years.  This could lead to escalating tit for tat violence as each side seeks revenge. Or actors might attack civilians and/or government buildings. Cyberattacks are possible, of course. At worst violence and responses spiral into wide-ranging battles across the nation.

What might stop this?  A clear and swift election result might take the wind out of everyone’s sails.  People working to deescalate conflict will be doing their best.  The presence of additional troops, police, and material defenses might deter some would-be destroyers. And enough Americans might just be weary of this interminable election to shrug and move on.  Meanwhile, violent crime has declined since COVID, despite popular anxieties; perhaps fewer criminals will join in street battles.  Moreover, if we compare to a previous national election struck with violence, 2024 lacks some of 2020’s accelerants, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the wave of George Floyd protests.

On a personal note, I live with my family in the Washington, DC area. My wife had a close encounter in 2021 with some January 6 rioters or their associates. We might be up close and personal with unrest occurring here.  Meanwhile, I’m traveling this week to two red states, Ohio and Texas, and might encounter people acting out along the way.  I plan to be back home to bike to the polls to vote in person on Election Day. Hopefully without incident.

For everyone, please be peaceful. Stay safe.