In 2022, Philanthropy Must Engage Decisively with Political Violence

As the one-year anniversary of the January 6 insurrection arrives, voices including academics, retired generals and community leaders are warning of a heightened risk of civil conflict. It’s time for philanthropy to understand political violence as a central trend in American public life, and join the diverse Americans mobilizing to address it.

Threats and use of force for political ends have become so frequent that we risk becoming desensitized to them. While a congressman’s tweet appearing to celebrate the murder of a colleague has prompted an effort to censor him, numerous candidates and elected officials have also been on the receiving end of such threats over the past year—including a moderate Republican candidate in Florida, members of Congress who supported the infrastructure bill, and GOP election officials in Arizona, Michigan and several other states. The New York Times reports that “threats of violence are becoming commonplace among a significant segment of the Republican Party.”

These threats are not only targeting high-profile politicians. 1 in 3 election officials report feeling unsafe because of their job. In Pennsylvania, for example, about one-third of county election officials left their positions over the past year and a half. Last spring, almost 1 in 4 public health workers said they were feeling “bullied, threatened or harassed,” and more than 10% had received job-related threats. More broadly, reported hate crimes targeting individuals on the basis of race, gender and religion continue to rise.

As Rachel Kleinfeld writes in the Journal of Democracy, political leaders’ willingness to use rhetoric that reinforces and inflames extremist views has created a “new reality: millions of Americans willing to undertake, support, or excuse political violence.” Indeed, recent studies have found that “substantial numbers of Republicans endorse statements contemplating violations of key democratic norms, including respect for the law and for the outcomes of elections and eschewing the use of force.”

The Voter Study Group found that about 16% of both Democrats and Republicans thought that using violence to advance political goals was at least “a little” justified. Among Republicans, ethnic antagonism, “especially concerns about the political power and claims on government resources of immigrants, African-Americans, and Latinos,” is a strong predictor of anti-democratic attitudes.

Many within U.S. philanthropy are keenly focused on reinvigorating and renovating American democracy, but violence makes the job far more difficult and changes the parameters. From local election officials to nationally recognized public figures, threats of violence are driving Americans out of public service in droves, opening more space for anti-democratic actors. In particular, the threats tend to target exactly those who have been willing to reach across political and cultural divides or push back on hateful speech within their own groups. We must support them, as they are the leaders who can buck the trends driving our society apart.

Violence itself decays civic institutions and frays the bonds that hold communities together. What is more, international experience teaches that the risks of violence endure—and sometimes reach their heights—amid efforts to reform dysfunctional systems and address democratic backsliding.

Those facts pose a significant challenge for U.S. philanthropy, as does the fact that the problem stems largely from the radicalization of one political party. As we’ve written elsewhere, successful strategies to strengthen the institutions of our democracy must also include strategies to prevent and build resilience against political violence and the structural, society-wide factors that make us especially vulnerable. We label this a “resilience-based” approach.

Our new working paper incorporates a deep survey of this domestic challenge, drawing on research and international experience to suggest strategies that philanthropic organizations working on bolstering democratic institutions, pushing back against polarization, addressing the communications landscape, and supporting justice should take to integrate violence prevention and mitigation efforts into existing strands of work.

First, we propose immediate attention to preventing further democratic backsliding, particularly where it may proximally increase the risk of violence around flashpoints (e.g., elections, public health, education); rebuilding public trust in institutions; and addressing the impact of violence on institutional health. Interventions here could include challenging legislation that interferes with democratic processes, and supporting local officials and institutions (e.g., elections administration officials) to manage and mitigate threats.

Second, although addressing the recent spike in extreme ideologies may appear outside the scope of traditional philanthropy, donors can scale and emulate existing models that address the mainstreaming of extremist ideas, and play a significant role in supporting and rebuilding trust among communities affected by extremist activity. For example, the Western States Center supports local and affected community groups in gaining tools and expertise to monitor and understand emerging threats.

Our harmful information environment allows violence to be organized, justified and coordinated at greater speed, and weakens the mitigation playbook. This must be addressed to build civil society’s capacity to address harmful narratives and mis/disinformation while supporting individuals and communities that are targeted. That means training the media to respond in helpful ways—and avoid inadvertently contributing to harm. It also means addressing the role of social media platforms in driving users toward extreme and harmful content and providing space for the coordination of violence.

We have seen in the U.S. and globally that dealing with the problematic information environment requires research and public pressure to secure and bring about both accountability and specific platform changes (in algorithms, platform policies and content moderation, protections to targeted groups, etc.). Mis/disinformation work should be integrated with other funding verticals, including those addressing white supremacy and extremism, polarization and political violence.

Fourth, we must also work to reinforce social norms that reject violence, conspiracy theories and discriminatory language and policies. Given the intensity of identity-based polarization, it will be necessary to prioritize norm-setting within groups, rather than expect a single campaign or spokesperson to be effective across polarized communities. For example, donors can support programming to activate and connect leaders to model norms that promote democracy and cooperation and reject behaviors that increase risks of violence within their own communities—especially in parts of the ideological spectrum that are being saturated with false and hateful messaging. Work is already underway to reinforce norms of nonviolence within specific communities and across sectors—including faith, veterans and business.

Fifth, norms need to come with accountability—both to reduce the likelihood of cycles of violence and retribution, and to re-establish expectations that laws and norms apply equally to all. Accountability serves a restorative purpose for aggrieved communities, reinvigorating trust and engagement in civic institutions. It also contributes to developing a shared narrative of “what happened,” helping prevent polarized accounts from entrenching and spurring further division, partisan recriminations and violence. Philanthropy can support efforts to create a more complete historical account of recent political violence, particularly the January 6 insurrection and enabling factors, in addition to long-term efforts to address the country’s history.

Finally, we must lay the groundwork now for a coordinated response to immediate risks for violence. As with public health crises or natural disasters, rapid-response infrastructure can ensure we are prepared in the face of crisis moments. A resilience-based approach requires support for coordination across groups, issues and regions; geographic and risk analysis to prioritize key areas for funding; and investment in cross-community relationships before crises emerge. Sustained support, through 2025 and likely beyond, is necessary to avoid boom-and-bust cycles for key organizations and leaders.

The rising risk of political violence in the United States is not just an outcome of democratic failure, but a side effect of efforts at democratic renewal. More urgently than ever, philanthropy needs to prepare to minimize and mitigate such violence as part of longer-term efforts to renew U.S. institutions and build bridges among American communities.

Rachel Brown is the founder and executive director of Over Zero. Sadia Hameed is the founder and executive director of Thought Partnerships. Heather Hurlburt directs New America’s New Models of Policy Change initiative. Among them, the three have half a century of experience in philanthropy, advocacy and conflict resolution globally and in the U.S.

Featured