experiences for "Here& Now". >> I'm Steven Potter.
>> 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 Hostility and thanks for Being
here. >> So in your book, you discuss
what you call moral disengagement that is vilifying
outgroups, hyping the morality of in-groups, minimizing harms
and righteous ends that justify aggressive means. Is that what's
happening here? >> It is. Yeah. The language
that we're hearing that's targeting migrants is
dehumanizing. Dehumanization is And what's dangerous about
dehumanizing rhetoric is that it? It creates excuses for
people to harm groups that they dislike. And so we see this
historically. We see this cross-nationally that
they're targeted with dehumanizing language, are more
subject to various kinds of harms, including violence
against the community. >> In your book, you say that
hyper political polarization doesn't diagnose the problem. It
disguises it. What do you mean by that?
>> Yeah, doctor. Lily 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. >> 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?
>> Yes. This 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.
>> What cues are there from history about how ordinary
citizens can be swept up in this?
>> Yeah, this kind of thinking, these kinds of actions are
unfortunately, historically common. This is the same kind of
thinking and rhetoric that that justified and perpetuated
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. >> 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? >> Yeah. So in our 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 rise, 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
as being wholly evil, they're certainly actions, including
racist violence that that could fairly be characterized as evil
and that that should be condemned in, in pretty strong
terms. If not evil. terms. If not evil.