US Midterm Elections: Understanding the Risk of Political Violence and Democratic Decline

Professor Barbara Walter suggests that the US midterm elections are likely to be relatively peaceful. She attributes this to the current conditions not being 'ripe for violence' and the expectation that Democrats will achieve a 'relatively big' victory, which would complicate any efforts by Donald Trump and his team to manipulate results. However, she noted that if the outcome were very close and flipped in favor of Republicans, protests would likely occur, although she does not foresee them turning violent.

Walter expressed greater concern for the long-term outlook, particularly leading up to 2028, stating, "Political violence is here to stay." She indicated that much could happen between now and then, making long-term predictions difficult.

This discussion set the stage for a deeper look into the underlying conditions in the United States, and how they might suggest that political violence could become a significant issue in the future.

Barbara Walter served on the CIA's Political Instability Task Force, which since 1994 has developed models to predict political instability and violence within a two-year timeframe. The task force initially identified 38 potential factors but narrowed them down to two critical indicators for high risk.

The first key factor is 'anocracy,' which Walter describes as a partial or weak democracy that includes elements of both democracy, such as elections, and autocracy, where the same party consistently wins. Hungary was cited as a classic example of an anocracy. The second factor is the presence of political parties where citizens align themselves not based on ideology but on identity, such as race, religion, or ethnicity. Yugoslavia in the early 1990s was presented as a historical example, where, after becoming a nascent democracy, citizens formed parties strictly along ethnic lines—Serb, Croat, and Bosnian Muslim.

Walter explained that if a country exhibits both anocracy and identity-based political parties, the task force would consider it at high risk of political violence and/or instability within the next two years and place it on a 'watchlist'.

Barbara Walter asserts that the United States currently exhibits both critical risk factors: anocracy and identity-based party politics. She noted that these trends have worsened, particularly in the last two years, coinciding with Donald Trump's increased political influence.

Walter stated that if the CIA's Political Instability Task Force were legally allowed to study the United States, the country would undoubtedly be placed on its watchlist. This assessment aligns with the V-Dem report, which, as Martin Wolf pointed out, documents an 'extraordinarily rapid decline' in the democratic health of the United States on the democracy-versus-anocracy scale.

Walter confirmed that the US has experienced the fastest decline of any advanced industrial democracy in history, reinforcing the argument that these two conditions for instability exist and are not improving.

Martin Wolf questioned the applicability of political instability models, typically derived from poorer and more fragile democracies, to the United States, a republic that has been functioning for 250 years. Barbara F. Walter affirmed that the models are applicable, though the manifestation of violence may not be identical.

Walter explained that the risk factors are cumulative. While the annual risk of political violence for a country exhibiting these two features is about 0.4%, this risk significantly increases over time. She stated, "When I think about the United States, I'm thinking in terms of a decade or two decades," suggesting a longer-term concern for increased political violence rather than an immediate crisis.

Barbara F. Walter identifies a major demographic transformation in the United States as a primary driver of declining democracy and the rise of racially and religiously based political parties. She noted that by around 2045, the US is projected to transition from a white-majority country to a white-minority country, a precedent that other advanced industrialized democracies like the UK are expected to follow.

Drawing from historical patterns and cases of ethnically based violence, Walter explained that the groups most likely to initiate conflict are not typically the poorest or most oppressed, but rather those that were once politically and economically dominant and are now in decline. She highlighted that white Christian men, who have historically held dominance in the US, are experiencing declines across various measures, including salaries, employment, education, and health outcomes.

Walter concluded that the dominant group generally does not relinquish power without resistance, leading to the expectation of 'angry white men' and increased political violence as this demographic shift continues. She emphasized, "What we know from history and what we know from all the other cases where ethnically based violence breaks out, is the people who tend to start it are not the poorest people. They're not the people who are the most oppressed, the people who tend to turn to violence are the group or groups that had once been politically and economically dominant but are in decline."

Martin Wolf suggested that the Republican Party's evolution, from an upper-middle-class, pro-business party to the party of Donald Trump, is a direct reflection of and reaction to profound demographic shifts. Barbara F. Walter affirmed this, stating, "Absolutely."

Walter explained that studies on violence consistently show that groups losing power experience a deep sense of grievance, loss of status, and resentment towards others who appear to be rising. These once-dominant groups, often still powerful, tend to use their access to power to try and solidify their position. She cited actions such as the elimination of the Voting Rights Act and voter suppression efforts targeting poor and minority voters as examples of attempts to cement power.

Walter also noted the significant shift in the Republican Party's demographics. Before 2008, the white working class largely voted Democrat. However, with the election of Barack Obama, this demographic began gravitating towards the Republican Party, drawn by a message of 'hope and power and agency.' Now, 80% of the Republican Party is white, a notable change in a multiethnic and multiracial country. She highlighted that this transformation reveals a subset of the white population that feels aggrieved and is aligning with the Republican Party, even when its economic policies may not directly serve their interests. Walter emphasized, "Studies that we have about violence all show that people who are losing power feel this deep, deep sense of grievance, this loss of status, this resentment at other people who seem to be doing better or who at least seem to be rising at a time when they're declining."

Barbara F. Walter drew strong parallels between current Republican strategies and the historical context of the antebellum South and the Jim Crow era. She explained that the secession of the 11 Confederate states in 1860 was triggered by the election of Abraham Lincoln, which marked the first time a president could win the White House without Southern support. This signaled to Southern landowners that they would no longer control the federal government, and thus, slavery would eventually be abolished.

Walter elaborated that white landowners in states like South Carolina and Louisiana feared real democracy because, at the time, these states had majority Black populations. If a truly democratic system with 'one man, one person, one vote' had been in place, white voters would have been disenfranchised in many areas. To maintain their power, these elites convinced the white working class, who mostly had no slaves, to fight for their interests, leveraging racial cleavage.

The speaker suggested that modern political dynamics mirror this historical situation. As whites face becoming a national minority, she indicated that some of the strategies currently employed by the Republican Party reflect an attempt to nationalize what was historically a Southern political system designed to maintain the power of a declining dominant group. Walter stated, "The 11 Confederate states in 1860, the reason why landowners decided they had to declare independence, they had to secede from the Union, was because the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 was the very first election that a president could come to the White House without the support of the Confederate States."

Martin Wolf questioned why current predictions of political violence are more pessimistic now than during the civil rights era in the 1960s and 70s, a period marked by widespread riots, bombings, and violence that the American Republic ultimately contained. Barbara F. Walter explained her increased pessimism by highlighting a critical difference: the role of the White House.

Walter stated, "I'm more pessimistic now because in the 1960s, the White House was on the side of democracy. It was the White House that was enforcing the rights and freedoms of all Americans. We have the opposite today." She argued that when a president in power does not believe in democracy, aims to intimidate or suppress citizens, and seeks to concentrate power, their response to protests will be vastly different. This shift in presidential stance fundamentally changes the risk profile, making the current situation more precarious, even though underlying conditions of 'weak democracy' and 'identity parties' can exist for extended periods without necessarily leading to violence.

Barbara F. Walter identified two primary triggers for political violence in the current US climate. The first is elections, particularly consecutive ones, where the losing side believes the outcome has been manipulated or stolen. She pointed to the MAGA base's belief that Joe Biden stole the 2020 election and Donald Trump's continued narrative that any future Republican losses would also be due to theft. This narrative, she warned, would be used in 2028, leading a subset of the Republican Party to feel a duty to 'rise up and prevent the outcome' of elections they lose to Democrats.

The second trigger is government response to protests. While protests can remain peaceful, violence often erupts when the government uses 'harsh, disproportionate force.' Walter stated, "Nothing radicalises citizens more than seeing the government attack innocent civilians." She expressed concern that the far right is mobilized and willing to fight, as evidenced by January 6, and would likely continue to do so in the future if electoral outcomes go against them. However, she also considered the inverse scenario, where Trump and the Republican Party successfully create an 'unlevel playing field' that effectively disenfranchises Democrats.

Barbara F. Walter discussed the risk of violence if one party successfully disenfranchises the other. She posited that if Donald Trump and the Republican Party create a political environment so skewed in their favor that Democrats cannot gain power, even if they win the popular vote, extremists within the left could eventually resort to violence. Walter explained, "If this happens over time, then the left will eventually rise up because those who are excluded from politics, if they have no other means of effecting change, at least extremists within their ranks, will eventually turn to violent means to try to effect change."

Martin Wolf highlighted that the core issue is that both sides in the US currently view the other as illegitimate, making every election 'structurally fraught.' This situation means that political life in the United States cannot 'calm down' because the stakes feel existential for both parties, potentially leading to serious violence at any moment.

Despite the severe risks, Barbara F. Walter expressed optimism that the United States will likely avoid major violence. She attributes this to her belief that the MAGA movement will 'slowly, slowly fade away' once Donald Trump, who will be 82 in two years, exits the political scene. Walter argued that Trump is such a charismatic figure that there will not be an easy substitute for him to maintain the movement's intensity. Consequently, she anticipates the Republican Party will realize that catering to a declining white male base is a 'losing strategy in a democracy' and will broaden its appeal, shifting towards more democratic support.

Walter identified the far-right as the most dangerous group due to their existing militias and history of training for violence. She noted they have been quieter while Trump was in the White House but expects their actions to change once he is out. She believes that if the Republican Party 'cuts them loose' and a White House and FBI are willing to monitor these groups and prosecute illegal actions, some control could be gained.

However, Walter's optimism is tempered if Republicans continue to lean towards an 'autocracy-light' system, in which case she believes a more likely uprising would come from the left.

Barbara F. Walter believes the United States is closer to a critical juncture than many realize, specifically within the next two years. She based this on data showing that countries moving from democracy into the unstable 'anocracy' zone typically remain there for an average of seven to twelve years. Given that the US has a winner-take-all majoritarian political system, it could stay in this middle zone even longer.

Historically, about 50% of countries in anocracy continue to slide into autocracy, 30% muddle along in the middle zone, and only about 20% return to a 'full, healthy democracy.' Walter emphasized, "Only about 20% return to full, healthy democracy. So it is not easy to reverse this and to reform and to become the healthy democracy you were before."

The 2028 election is highlighted as the key moment. It represents the first electoral cycle since the US entered this deep anocracy zone and will be highly indicative of whether the executive branch concentrates more power, making future elections less fair, or if a 'voter surge' leads to democratic reform, as seen recently in Serbia, Hungary, and Brazil.

Martin Wolf questioned Barbara F. Walter about the materialization of election-rigging concerns she had listed in her February Substack post, titled 'They're Losing America So They're Rigging the Game.' The list included federal changes to voting rules, post-election certification obstruction by partisan officials, replacement of election administrators with partisan individuals, rhetoric preemptively delegitimizing defeat, and massive ad spending by one side.

Walter emphatically confirmed that all these signs are indeed occurring. She exclaimed, "It’s exactly what’s happening! Exactly. It’s what’s happening!" She specifically noted that Donald Trump was already contesting results in Alaska even before the election had taken place, reinforcing the manifestation of the concerns she had raised.

Despite acknowledging that Republicans are employing "every single dirty trick in the book," Barbara F. Walter maintains her optimism for the midterms, primarily due to high voter engagement. She believes American voters are highly motivated by concerns such as inflation, high gas prices, and perceived presidential corruption.

Early voting numbers indicate unusually high turnout for a midterm election cycle, which typically sees lower participation. Walter expects energized left-leaning and independent voters to determine the outcome, while a lack of enthusiasm among Republicans might lead to lower turnout on the right.

Walter argued that an 'overwhelming victory' for Democrats would be exceedingly difficult for Trump to overturn, regardless of the tactics employed. She stated, "And Trump can do all those things I listed, and it will be very, very hard to overturn an overwhelming victory." Martin Wolf summarized her point as Republicans being 'extraordinarily incompetent' in their rigging attempts, leading them to lose voter support on a scale that makes defeat likely anyway.

Barbara F. Walter believes that winning the midterm election will be the "easy part for Democrats." She anticipates that the subsequent two years will be much harder, as Donald Trump is expected to use his veto power and executive authority aggressively to block any Democratic agenda.

Walter emphasized that Congress is the primary check on presidential power, a role she claims the Republican-dominated Congress of the previous two years neglected, effectively ceding power to the executive branch. If Democrats gain control of the House, and especially the Senate, she stated they must be willing to "take the gloves off and be willing to fight, and wield their power" against a formidable and aggressive president.

Failure to effectively use their congressional power, Walter warned, could lead the American public to perceive Democrats as weak. This, in turn, could damage their prospects for the 2028 election, potentially setting up America for another Republican victory. Walter concluded that she is already looking beyond the midterms to the actions of Democrats in Congress and their willingness to fight.