IVN is joined by Nate Allen, founder and Executive Director of Utah Approves, to discuss Approval Voting and his perspective on changing the incentives of our elections.
Podcast: Seeking approval in Utah


IVN is joined by Nate Allen, founder and Executive Director of Utah Approves, to discuss Approval Voting and his perspective on changing the incentives of our elections.

Mutual aid volunteers hand out food, toiletries and other supplies outside the fence of Amphi Park in Tucson, which was closed recently over concerns about the unsheltered population that previously lived there.
In August, fewer than 250 voters cast a ballot in a South Tucson recall election targeting the mayor and two allies in the city council. The three officials, Mayor Roxnna “Roxy” Valenzuela and council members Brian Flagg and Cesar Aguirre, form a progressive coalition in the small city’s leadership. Outside government, they also all work with Casa Maria, a local soup kitchen that provides hundreds of warm meals daily and distributes clothing, toiletries and bedding to the city’s unhoused population.
It was their deeds providing for the homeless population that put a target on their back. A political rival claimed their humanitarian efforts and housing initiatives acted as a magnet for problems that the already struggling city was ill-equipped to handle.
Voters rejected that argument on Aug. 5, choosing to keep Mayor Roxy Valenzuela and council members Brian Flagg and Cesar Aguirre in office. But the recall captured the pressure that local officials as well as outreach groups like Casa Maria have found themselves under in Arizona when they respond to homelessness with anything but a punitive crackdown.
“It’s part of a bigger issue,” Aguirre said after he survived the recall. “This country has moved so far right that it is hard to present anything humanitarian or progressive that addresses the roots of the issues. Rather than addressing poverty, they want to just lock people up and hide them away and act like the problem doesn’t exist.”

Volunteers at Casa Maria Soup Kitchen provide hundreds of meals each morning to unsheltered people living in Tucson and South Tucson. Photo by Pascal Sabino/Bolts
As Arizona’s homelessness crisis has worsened, local governments have simultaneously invested in various stick and carrot approaches to policy. They’ve offered some shelter and long-term housing solutions, while also conducting punitive sweeps and enforcement operations at encampments that shuffle unsheltered people back and forth between neighborhoods, city parks, and seasonal riverbeds where they can find lifesaving shade in the barren desert climate.
But as state and national leaders have ramped up the policing approach, plans to alleviate poverty and create more housing have taken a backseat. In some cases, they’ve made it a lot harder, even for nonprofit organizations, to engage communities and continue their aid work.
There aren’t enough shelter beds across the state — a challenge public officials admit to — but last year’s Supreme Court ruling on Grants Pass v. Johnson upheld the ability for cities to punish people for seeking shelter on public land even if there is nowhere else for them to go. The ruling freed cities to enact camping bans that target the homeless. And in Arizona, Republican lawmakers responded by advancing a policy, which was later approved by a voter referendum last year, that empowers property owners to pressure cities to more heavily police the unhoused and adopt new policies to ban them from public space.
That measure, Proposition 312, allows home and business owners to demand a property tax refund to offset the costs and damages incurred that they attribute to local governments’ failure to abate the nuisance caused by homelessness. While it is unclear what threshold cities have to meet to avoid triggering the tax refund, the law effectively allows residents to penalize cities that avoid criminal enforcement against the unhoused, while threatening to drain local coffers that fund housing and social services meant to address the issue.
In Tucson, the state’s intervention prompted the city council to amplify the sweeps it was already doing, and pass ordinances that ban panhandling in road medians and camping in parks and seasonal riverbeds, known as washes. In South Tucson, a separate city, the pressure imposed by the new state law, plus local backlash toward more progressive solutions, left the leaders who championed them on the defensive. But in the face of their political survival, they’re now doubling down on making the case for more humanitarian solutions to the housing and homelessness crises.

An encampment for unhoused people at Santa Rita Park in Tucson, Ariz., being cleared by city officials on Sept. 25, 2024. Photo by Noor Haghighi/The Daily Wildcat
The small town of South Tucson is just 1.2 square miles and is completely enclosed by Tucson. The town of under 5,000 residents is predominantly low-income, and the local government has little tax revenue to invest in the housing assistance, job services and behavioral health programs that would be needed to tackle the root causes of homelessness.
Because the city doesn’t have the resources to address homelessness alone, local leaders must depend on mutual aid groups and nonprofits, including Casa Maria, to provide support like water, food, and the lifesaving overdose treatment drug, Naloxone. Those partners have also worked to create pathways out of homelessness and help relieve nuisances like garbage that are inevitable when a large population lives outdoors.
“We are not about criminalizing homelessness. We want to help them. We offer resources, even though they are limited. In a small community we are looking for ways to help them, build trust with them, and hold them accountable,” Valenzuela said. “We are trying to piece together a coalition of groups that can help our community. We can’t do it alone.”
Valenzuela sees her work through Casa Maria as a starting point for actually solving the underlying problems causing homelessness — issues that can’t simply be shooed out of the city limits. With personal help from the council members, Casa Maria purchased two local motels in 2023 and converted them to affordable housing aimed at combating rising property taxes and rent costs driven by urban renewal in nearby downtown Tucson, which has forced many longtime residents out of their neighborhoods.

South Tucson Mayor Roxy Valenzuela sits next to Council Member Cesar Aguirre, on November 19, 2024. Photo via CityOfSouthTucson/Instagram
Valenzuela explained that she lives with her family at one of the two properties purchased by the soup kitchen. It’s an act of solidarity with other residents, she said, and also to help keep tabs on a place that used to be a trouble spot. There, she experienced for herself the challenges facing South Tucson when in July a woman jumped the fence at the hotel, urinated on the ground and began smoking fentanyl in view of her two children. As Valenzuela approached, she realized the woman looked familiar. “We went to high school together,” Valenzuela said.
“I was able to decompress the situation. These are real people, not statistics. You need to build trust and offer them real resources. Sometimes the best people to offer those resources are not the cops — it can be a community member or a clinician,” she said.
But the tax refunds established by Prop 312 remain a looming threat to South Tucson’s already tight budget. So far few, if any, tax refunds have been issued. It is uncertain how much Arizona cities will eventually shell out to reimburse homeowners under Prop 312, and it remains unclear what kinds of policies will spare cities from triggering the penalty — but the threat alone is enough to disrupt local politics.
City Council Member Paul Diaz, a former mayor who spearheaded the recall attempt against Valenzuela and two other city councilors, criticized his colleagues for prioritizing affordable housing and aid over economic development.
Diaz has heard constituents complain of damaged fencing that would cost over a thousand dollars to replace, stolen parcels and shoplifted items, and buildings damaged by camp fires at encampments that the city may be held liable for. By making South Tucson habitable for those without homes, aid groups could inadvertently bankrupt the city, Diaz said.
“We don’t want them here, and yet we are drawing them here with the soup kitchen and low-rent housing,” Diaz said about homeless people. “Affordable housing is not a reality. It doesn’t bring money into the coffers of South Tucson for police and fire. When they started promoting affordable housing, all these people are coming into the city due to the fact that Casa Maria is affording these things that attract all these people."
The attempted recall in August was not South Tucson’s first: Diaz himself was recalled as mayor in 2015. He later launched a successful recall campaign in 2018 that removed the then-mayor and three council members over conflicts with the city’s police and fire departments. The latest effort, said Council Member Aguirre, is “a distraction” prompted by conservative voices on the national stage aiming to police away complex social issues that have “trickled down” and begun to reshape local governments.

The City of Tucson cleared one of its largest homeless encampments at Santa Rita Park on the south side on Sept. 25, 2024. Dozens of people had lived in the park, and hundreds used it daily for shade before it was cordoned off with caution tape, forcing them onto nearby sidewalks or to seek shelter elsewhere. Photo by Noor Haghighi/The Daily Wildcat
Those tensions around homelessness became political fodder last election for President Donald Trump and his allies, who attacked progressive cities and Democrat-led states on the issue. In July, Trump signed an executive order that directed agencies to pull funding from housing first programs and prioritize federal grants to cities that enforce criminal camping bans. Despite falling crime in the capital, Trump declared in August a public safety emergency attributed to homelessness and invoked the 1973 District of Columbia Home Rule Act to federalize the Metropolitan Police and deploy the National Guard to clear encampments.
The South Tucson leaders that defeated the recall attempt, though, point their work through Casa Maria as an alternative.
They say community initiatives have also helped relieve the nuisances that might otherwise trigger the tax refund penalty created by Prop 312. Valenzuela partnered with community group Barrio Restoration to develop a project that pays unsheltered people to clean up litter, do basic landscaping, and beautify their neighborhoods. The program, Barrio Keepers, recruits people served at Casa Maria soup kitchen and allows them to develop valuable skills while improving the communities they are already part of. The program also provides housing for some keepers at the motels purchased by Casa Maria.
“I’ve struggled with addiction and with mental health. One of the things that’s helped me the most is having dignity, having something that gives me purpose and drive to want to do better,” Aguirre said. “They might be sober for a month, or maybe just a few days, but they get put right back into the same conditions that they were in, and can’t get a job or education. Those are the things that we need to be addressing, rather than criminalizing people.”
In surrounding Tucson, even as city leaders have invested in housing and social programs, they’ve responded to Prop 312 and state officials’ push to crack down on homelessness more generally by expanding the authority police already have to remove homeless people from public land.
The city council enacted an ordinance in March that makes it a crime to stand in road medians, followed by additional policies passed in June that ban camping in parks and washes. While the bans may insulate the city from liability under the new state law, leaders said the ordinances are meant to prevent nuisances from damaging not only private property, but also the ecology of the city’s parks, seasonal waterways and nature areas where garbage, tents, bedding and needles often collect. When the bans were proposed, city manager Timothy Thomure said in a memo they are meant to prevent the loss of life during flash floods in the riverbeds and to “protect the environment.”
Before the camping bans took effect in July, police and city workers often did sweeps at encampments by enforcing laws on trespassing, drug use and other crimes, a result of mounting pressure by homeowners associations to more strictly police encampments. In a 2023 lawsuit filed by the Hedrick Acres Neighborhood Association, residents claimed the city’s failure to deal with unsheltered people living at the Navajo Wash Park had created a public safety crisis that damaged surrounding homes. An appeals court ruled in favor of the group this year and found the city can be held liable for issues tied to the encampment.
"There is a big push to appease people complaining about homelessness by putting them in jail. I don’t think they believe it, but they seem to think that going through the criminal justice system will get them off drugs and into treatment,” said Liz Casey, an organizer with the mutual aid group Community Care Tucson. “But they don’t have a plan: they don’t have new housing or group homes. [Unhoused people] go to jail, do a program, or go to detox for 24 hours, and then they’re back out on the street. There’s no plan after that."
Casey and other advocates say that criminalizing homelessness will make it harder for mutual aid groups and city workers to connect with people living outside and build the trust with them needed to offer supplies, shelter and treatment.
In May, Tucson Police Department took part in an outreach event along the Santa Cruz riverbed, alongside city workers offering supportive services. The outreach operation resulted in 39 arrests, while seven people accepted assistance including housing and addiction treatment.
“That has completely eroded any trust that there was. It’s ridiculous — they had police out arresting people while they had city tents set up with chips and water for people,” Casey told me. “They know it isn’t going to help. They know it is going to make it worse. But it is to cover their own asses so they don’t get sued again.”
Kevin Dahl, the only Tucson city council member who voted against the camping bans, told me the new ordinances are unnecessary since police can already take action when an encampment creates a safety risk. The city has had a protocol in place since 2022 designed to coordinate multiple agencies to respond to complaints about encampments so that low-risk situations can be addressed through garbage cleanups and outreach instead of law enforcement. According to data from Tucson’s Department of Environmental Services, the city has done an average of 206 encampment cleanups each month this year. In July, the city slated 197 encampments for immediate removal, and 30 of those sweeps involved police. The camping bans may protect the city from legal liability and penalties under Prop 312, Dahl said, but the irony is that they are unlikely to increase policing and arrests.
“They aren’t going to result in any additional action that we are doing,” Dahl said. “Maybe some people were thinking about optics, and it looks better to the people who are concerned about encampments near them, or who have had problems with unsheltered people in their alleys or with crime.”
In the midst of the state’s push for governments to crack down on homeless encampments, a network of mutual aid groups appealed to the city of Tucson to avoid triggering the Prop 312 tax refunds by meeting the needs of the unhoused, rather than punishing them or sweeping them from one location to another. Organizers wrote an open letter calling on city leaders to invest in housing and aid. “(It is) a plea and a menu of options that already exist because of community-based organizations,” said Angel Breault, the head of Reconciliación en el Rio Santa Cruz, a group dedicated to protecting and restoring the ecology of Tucson’s washes.
Volunteers with the Amphi Liberation Mutual Aid group set up tables with food, clothes, drinks and personal care items each week outside a fenced-off park in northern Tucson to distribute to people living in the area around sunset as the extreme heat fades.
The aid distributions are consistent, so those living in the area know when and where they can reliably restock their supplies, and most have become familiar faces, volunteers said as they set up a water cooler. Observing a distribution alongside Amphi Liberation volunteers one Tuesday, I saw that the rapport they build allows people to ask for things without fear of judgement: a young man with a cheery demeanor asked a volunteer for an extra scoop of electrolyte drink mix into his canteen before sitting down to eat. As a woman collected toiletries from a table, she asked for a spare dose of naloxone to keep on hand. The group also provides more intimate forms of care, like haircuts and wound treatment.

A sign welcomes visitors to the weekly mutual aid distribution in Amphi Park in Tucson. The volunteers’ regular presence allows them to build trust with unhoused residents over time. Photo by Pascal Sabino/Bolts
The church that owns the park closed it in February over maintenance issues and safety concerns attributed to those who sought shelter there. But when the park was cleared out and fenced off, it “forced these folks to scatter about the area” and lowered the turnout to the mutual aid distributions there, said organizer Xavier Martinez. The displacement caused by sweeps and park closures “really is scary” for the most vulnerable unhoused people with disabilities or chronic illnesses since it interrupts the treatment provided by nurses and other care workers at mutual aid sites, Martinez explained to me.
“If they are getting treated for a severe wound, and the next day they get displaced — that’s another prolonged amount of time where their wound begins to fester,” Martinez said. “It’s hard to be consistent with being able to treat folks.”
Tucson’s new policies may throw a wrench into the grassroots efforts to support the homeless — but with resources already stretched thin, the city also depends on those organizations to cover the gaps in services and basic necessities.
Mutual aid groups worked together to set up 26 water stations across the city as part of the Agua Para el Pueblo initiative, according to Breault of Reconciliacion en el Rio Santa Cruz. Though neighbors are sometimes frustrated that they attract undesirable visitors, the water stations are a lifeline for preventing heat-related deaths since the city runs only six cooling centers, one per ward, despite temperatures regularly in the triple digits. The water stations also provide trash bins, paper cups and sometimes reusable water bottles to cut down on trash, like the disposable gas station cups that many rely on to stay hydrated, which is the most common litter found in the washes, Breault said.
But the Agua Para el Pueblo initiative — and other aid projects — exists in a legal grey area, due to a longstanding ordinance that bars the distribution of food and drinks to 10 or more people on public land without a permit. The rule isn’t currently enforced, but it reflects the city’s reluctance to embrace the grassroots humanitarian strategies that are already in motion, even as they offer city governments a model for how they can stack resources and services to meet the needs of unhoused people while also minimizing the nuisances to neighbors.
“The groups that are being treated as opposition are the ones providing the stopgap resources that are missing,” Breault said. If the humanitarian aid they offer were to disappear, he added, “then the city is going to have a bigger problem to deal with.”
Pascal Sabino is a staff writer for Bolts. He previously worked for Block Club Chicago covering policing and courts, and the city’s west side neighborhoods.
Camille Squires is a story editor at Bolts with experience covering city-level government and politics. Her reporting has appeared in Quartz, NewYork Magazine, City Monitor, and Mother Jones
Rodrigo Cervantes is an award-winning bilingual journalist and communications strategist with extensive experience in the U.S., Mexico, and internationally.
Facing a Crackdown on Homelessness, Two Arizona Cities Offer Different Responses was originally published by Bolts and is republished with permission.

The unprecedented power grab by President Trump, in many cases, usurping the clear and Constitutional authority of the U.S. Congress, appears to leave our legislative branch helpless against executive branch encroachment. In fact, the opposite is true. Congress has ample authority to reassert its role in our democracy, and there is a precedent.
During the particularly notable episode of executive branch corruption during the Nixon years, Congress responded with a robust series of reforms. Campaign finance laws were dramatically overhauled and strengthened. Nixon’s overreach on congressionally authorized spending was corrected with the passage of the Impoundment Act. And egregious excesses by the military and intelligence community were blunted by the War Powers Act and the bipartisan investigation by Senator Frank Church (D-Idaho).
It seems perfectly possible that, once Trump leaves the White House, Congress could reassert its authority under Article I of the Constitution, as it has done before. What are the logical reforms that could be proposed better to correct the imbalance in our checks and balances system?
Problem: Executive branch ignoring federal law -- passed by Congress and signed by the President -- to spend appropriated funds.
Solution: Remove OMB's discretion to apportion federal funding and direct agencies to spend funds as directed by Congress. The Antideficiency Act, originally passed in 1880, prohibits federal employees from “making or authorizing an expenditure or any appropriation or fund in excess of the amount available in the appropriation or fund unless authorized by law,” according to the General Accountability Office. Penalties include removal from office, fines, and even jail sentences. Why not add a provision that imposes penalties for NOT spending federal dollars? The threat of prosecution is a remarkable incentive to obey the law and may be helpful here.
Problem: The President declaring emergencies to act in an unconstitutional manner, such as levying tariffs.
Solution: Pass a law clarifying how and when a President can declare an emergency. Thankfully, there is already bipartisan legislation to do just that. “The Article One Act,” led the House by Chip Roy (R-TX), (yes – Mr. MAGA himself), and Steve Cohen (D-TN), and by Mike Lee (R-UT) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) in the Senate, would address this issue by terminating a presidential declaration of a national emergency after 30 days unless Congress passes a joint resolution approving the declaration. The Supreme Court may eventually rule against Trump on the tariff question, since the Constitutional language regarding Congress’s primacy role for tariffs and revenue is crystal clear. Yet more protection is clearly needed.
Problem: President Trump is firing federal agencies' inspectors general (IG), who are supposed to be free of political interference.
Solution: Strengthen the laws to provide additional protections to IG’s. The roughly 80 federal inspectors general are watchdogs established by Congress and embedded in federal agencies to root out waste, fraud, and abuse. Among other things, they take in whistleblower complaints and ferret out illegal activity. The Federal Vacancies Act should be updated, per a recommendation from the Project on Government Oversight, to vest the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) with the power to make temporary appointments. As a backup in case a court strikes down that process, Congress should allow designated federal judges to appoint acting IGs from a list of candidates maintained by CIGIE. This mirrors the model for appointing temporary U.S. attorneys. This would ensure their qualifications and independence.
Problem: President Trump is eviscerating the Advice and Consent clause of the Constitution regarding the appointment of U.S. Attorneys, allowing him and his cronies to avoid U.S. Senate oversight and confirmation.
Solution: Change laws regarding the appointment of Acting U.S. Attorneys. Multiple cases are winding their way through the court system, with some courts invalidating these appointments in full. And the judicial branch may eventually correct this violation of the spirit of the Constitution. However, the chaos and delay are leaving our judicial system in tatters. Congress can clarify the role of Acting U.S. Attorneys, even directing rank-and-file career prosecutors to fill that role until the Senate confirms a replacement.
Problem: The federal courts are abetting Trump's power grab by creating new protections for the president, such as immunity from prosecution, and by dramatically expanding presidential hiring and removal authorities by asserting the unitary executive theory.
Solution: The Senate should strive to increase the percentage of nominees to the federal courts who have legislative branch experience and should dramatically limit the number of appointees who have worked in the Justice Department. This would ensure that federal judges are more respectful of Congress's prerogatives and less likely to embrace maximalist executive-branch legal theories.
There will likely be many who read these ideas and consider their contemplation a wasteful exercise. Congress has both neutered itself and allowed the executive branch to invade its jurisdiction to such a degree that an assertive legislative branch is unthinkable. However, at other times in American history, similar imbalances have occurred between the branches of government. And the American democratic pendulum always seems to swing back to restore sensible equilibrium. One thing is for certain: if we don’t at least discuss and debate a restoration of Congressional authority, nothing will happen.
Bradford Fitch is the former CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation and author of “Citizens’ Handbook for Influencing Elected Officials.” Daniel Schuman is the Executive Director of the American Governance Institute.
Nearly 14 years ago, after nearly 12 years of public service, my boss, Rep. Todd Platts, surprised many by announcing he was not running for reelection. He never term-limited himself, per se. Yet he had long supported legislation for 12-year term limits. Stepping aside at that point made sense—a Cincinnatus move, with Todd going back to the Pennsylvania Bar as a hometown judge.
Term limits are always a timely issue. Term limits may have died down as an issue in the halls of Congress, but I still hear it from people in my home area.
I have supported term limits for Representatives and Senators at both the state and federal levels. Yet I supported only the term limits introduced by Todd. His term-limits bills would have limited both Representatives and Senators to 12 years in office, short of the 6 years for Representatives advocated by at least one term-limits group, but still imposing a significant limitation on the legislature. Todd’s bill also applied only to consecutive terms, meaning if there was a break in legislative service – either during the twelve years or after twelve years – the clock reset. Add Todd’s bill, which partially grandfathered existing Representatives and Senators.
Todd’s bill seemed the best approach at the time. I instinctively opposed term limits of less than twelve years: Turnover in Congress has democratic value, but six years? Twelve felt the correct number. Add that limiting voting to consecutive terms balances the right of people to vote for anyone they want with the problem of incumbency, as my boss highlighted: An incumbent just doing their job has a great advantage in getting reelected. If there is a break in incumbency, the playing field is more level. As to the grandfathering, this helps ensure time to prepare for what amounts to a radical change in constitutional structure.
Maybe I still support term limits. Maybe not. But first, I want to dispatch with the two less persuasive arguments for term limits.
Do term limits have to mean a lack of needed experience in the legislative process? I do not think so if we set a 12-year limit. A few years is enough time to get up to speed – especially if we elect people who do their homework before even running. Not to mention that experience in the life of a Congressional District or state is valid experience for serving in the legislature, too.
Would term limits increase the influence of lobbyists or increase the “revolving door”? Unlikely in the first case and only somewhat in the second. There would be plenty of new legislators with no real connection to all those lobbyists.
However, there is also this argument: Term limits would insulate Senators and Representatives from the people. If time is limited, you are free to ignore public opinion. If one does not need to be re-elected, whether in six years or twelve years or whatever, would not there be greater statesmanship in terms of following legislative judgment over public opinion?
Yet, on this last one, I believe statesmanship is different than ignoring public opinion. It involves an engagement with the people. Engaging with the people to take positions shaped by their views but not controlled by them. So, a statesman is someone who considers public opinion but does not surrender to it 100%. The true statesman seeks compromise both inside Congress with other legislators and outside Congress with public opinion. A true statesman is still a public servant.
I confess that I liked working for Todd in Congress. When we hit the 12-year term limit, I admittedly had a self-interest in staying in Congress, working for Todd. But I can also honestly say that a shift in my position has been buttressed by my experience with Todd in being a true public servant.
I take pride in this – our attempts to reach constituents by responding to their letters, postcards, e-mails, and phone calls, and engaging in conversation. Our use of direct media and news media to inform constituents of the best case for the votes of Todd – then letting them decide whether that “best case” is good enough. Our town halls, where Todd made himself totally accountable to the people of his Congressional District. All of this is shaping Todd’s votes and actions.
Contra typical term limits arguments, I sincerely left Congress with an even greater commitment to the people of our Congressional District. How could I not when engaging so much with its good people?Scott Miller is a graduate of Widener School of Law, a former chief of staff in Congress, and the author of 'Christianity & Your Neighbor's Liberty.

Liliana Mason
In the aftermath of the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the threat of political violence has become a topic of urgent concern in the United States. While public support for political violence remains low—according to Sean Westwood of the Polarization Research Lab, fewer than 2 percent of Americans believe that political murder is acceptable—even isolated incidence of political violence can have a corrosive effect.
According to political scientist Lilliana Mason, political violence amounts to a rejection of democracy. “If a person has used violence to achieve a political goal, then they’ve given up on the democratic process,” says Mason, “Instead, they’re trying to use force to affect government.”
Mason, a professor at Johns Hopkins University, has devoted her professional career to the study of American partisanship. In her first book, Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity, she looked at the social sorting of Democrats and Republicans into increasingly hostile parties. This was followed by Radical American Partisanship: Mapping Violent Hostility, Its Causes, and the Consequences for Democracy (co-authored with Nathan P. Kalmoe), which used national opinion surveys to document the spread of radical beliefs among Americans, both left and right.
Mason comes away from her research with deep concerns about the state of American democracy. According to Mason and Kalmoe, “the data is undeniable: although public support for political violence is increasing across the partisan spectrum, people on the Right are far likelier to translate this sentiment into real-world, violent action.”
Mason recently sat down with Greg Berman, The Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation’s distinguished fellow of practice, to discuss her research. The following transcript of their conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Greg Berman: In recent years, we have seen two assassination attempts on Donald Trump and the storming of the US Capitol. This suggests to me that we're currently in a very dark place. On the other hand, if you zoom out a little bit, there have certainly been periods in American history where political violence was much more widespread than it is today. I guess my question is: How worried should we be about polarization and political violence in our country right now?
Lilliana Mason: In terms of polarization, it's probably as bad as it can get. The way that we think about each other as partisans is deeply distrustful and even vilifying and dehumanizing. Having vilifying and dehumanizing beliefs about another group doesn't always lead to mass violence, but when mass violence does occur, those beliefs are usually there beforehand.
Now, we still have relatively strong norms against political violence in the US. Even in the worst numbers that we find, there is still something like 80 percent of Americans who think that violence should never be used to achieve political goals. But the worrisome part is that we went from 7 percent of people approving of political violence in 2017 to 20 percent today. That’s potentially significant.
Let's be clear: the people who do engage in political violence are generally unwell people. In some cases, like the assassination attempt against Trump [in Pennsylvania], it was clearly a plea for attention—that kid could just as easily have been a school shooter. The guy in Minnesota [who killed a lawmaker and her husband] was also having a mental health event. I think that what political polarization does is take people who are already unstable and point them in the direction of politics. They are being fed information that makes them believe that there's an existential threat coming from the other side. That’s what creates political violence.
In your book, Radical American Partisanship, you compare Democrats and Republicans across a variety of measures and find that there’s not much difference in terms of radicalization. But you don’t believe that both parties are equally responsible for our current political situation. Walk me through the difference that you see between the two parties.
We do see similar levels of vilifying attitudes in the electorate as a whole. But when it comes to actual violent political events, they're just unimaginably more prevalent on the right. Right-wing domestic terrorism has outpaced all other kinds of domestic terrorism in the United States.
We can't exactly identify why, but there does seem to be pretty clear evidence that political rhetoric on the right is much more vilifying than rhetoric on the left. You find a lot more far-right media that explicitly says things like, “Democrats are violent criminals, and they're coming to hurt your family.” The types of storylines that we see in right-wing media are just much more extreme in terms of their intent to vilify Democrats and people on the left in general.
The other thing that I would say is that we know that approval of political violence is correlated with anti-pluralistic and anti-egalitarian attitudes. Racism, Christian nationalism, replacement theory… those types of attitudes tend to be associated with approval of political violence. And those kinds of attitudes are more prevalent on the right.
The reason that Democrats and Republicans hate each other right now is that they're having a fight about questions that are truly existential. The people who are the most vilifying and dehumanizing of their opponents are Republicans who are high in racial resentment and Democrats who are low in racial resentment. These Republicans say that Democrats are subhuman because they're minorities. And the Democrats say that Republicans are subhuman because they're racist. The fact that vilifying attitudes are equally prevalent on both sides doesn't mean that the moral argument is the same on both sides. The current project of the Right is to undo our pluralistic, multi-ethnic democracy. And so this isn’t just a normal political fight.
What impact, if any, has Trump had on all of this?
In a 2021 American Political Science Review article I wrote with some co-authors, I looked at a unique data set. Basically, in 2011, something like nine thousand people were interviewed, and then they were reinterviewed in 2016, 17, 18, 19, and 20. 2011 was before Trump was a major political figure, so this enabled us to ask a basic question: Did Trump encourage people to be more racist or did Trump bring already racist people into the Republican Party? And I think we have pretty good evidence that it's the latter. The people who liked Trump in 2018, when you go back to 2011 and ask what they had in common, you see that those people were much more likely to dislike traditionally marginalized groups like Latinos, Muslims, African Americans, and LGBT people. Trump brought those people into the Republican Party. They were largely independents in 2011. Trump made the Republican Party a comfortable place for them.
Don’t get me wrong: these attitudes existed in the Republican Party before Trump, but they tended to be the minority of the party before he came in. When Trump came in, he essentially empowered the ethno-nationalist faction of Americans. That faction is now in control of one of our political parties. This wouldn't be as much of a problem if we had more than two political parties, but because we only have two, they can control the levers of government.
It feels like there is a lot of anger out there at the moment. It is unclear to me to what extent Trump has created this problem and to what extent he is a symptom of this problem.
The problem definitely didn’t start with Trump. You can go back to Rush Limbaugh, who said things like “The Democrats are evil and they're coming to get you and your family.” That type of rhetoric became really popular in the 1980s when Limbaugh had his AM radio show.
And then, when the Republican majority came into power in the 1990s, Newt Gingrich had the GOPAC memo, where he basically laid out a vocabulary list of words that Republicans should use to describe Democrats. And that really did change the tenor of how political leaders talked. Before Gingrich, it was considered kind of uncouth to use that type of language.
And then, of course, in 1996, we get Fox News. In the beginning, Fox News was not explicitly a project about vilifying the Left and pushing right-wing talking points, but by 2001, it had become a very explicitly pro-Republican news source.
So I don't think that Trump started it. I think that he is an outgrowth of decades of extremist right-wing rhetoric.
I've always taken some comfort from issue polling, which suggests that Americans are actually not that far apart ideologically, even when it comes to controversial issues. But in Uncivil Agreement, you argue that partisans don't have to hold extreme positions in order to grow increasingly biased against their political opponents. Walk me through how that works.
A while ago, I worked on some experiments where I had people read blog posts that threatened either their issue positions or the status of their political party. So one group of blog posts said things like “If this person is elected, we're not going to have abortion rights anymore” or “We're not going to have health care anymore.” Another set said things like, “If this person is elected, no one is going to like Democrats anymore. Everyone is going to hate us and we're going to lose elections.” And what we found was that the partisan messages make people a lot angrier than the issue-based messages.
I have also looked at the extremity of people's issue positions versus the strength of their identification with the label “liberal” or “conservative.” What I found was that if someone identifies really strongly with one of those labels, then they really hate people in the other ideological category, regardless of what their policy attitudes are. I looked specifically at the most liberal people who nonetheless identify as conservative. These are people who hold liberal policy preferences, but they identify as conservative. That identification still makes them hate liberals, even though they hold very similar policy preferences.
What most of the data show is that we do have a lot of policy preferences in common. There are huge proportions of Americans that agree on even divisive issues like abortion and guns. So we have a lot of common ground, but we deeply hate each other. And that's based in identity.
One of the themes that runs through your work is a concern about social sorting and how our political parties are overlapping with other categories like geography and gender. Given this, I’m wondering how you read the results of the most recent presidential election. The exit polls suggest that Trump was actually a force for racial depolarization, attracting greater numbers of Blacks, Hispanics, and Asian American voters to the Republican Party.
Just being a member of a minority group doesn't mean that you don't dislike other minorities. Whatever resentments you might have against other groups of people, Trump activated those. I think the reality is that there are plenty of Black Americans who don't like LGBT people. There are plenty of Muslims who don't like LGBT people. There are plenty of Latinos that don't like Black people.
What I've found in my more recent research is that the people who voted for Trump in 2024 were really motivated by attitudes about the appropriate roles of men and women in society. A lot of people, despite being a member of a racial minority group, voted for Trump on this basis. They were not voting based on the interests of their racial group, but on the interests of their gender group. The people of color that were voting for Trump were generally men.
Men of all races are listening to the manosphere bro podcasts, which really like Trump. They like the way that he talks. They think he's funny. Bloomberg did a really good analysis of the content of the nine most popular bro podcasts in the year leading up to the election. And they basically found that, as we got closer to the election, these podcasts started talking more about transgender issues and about distrusting medical science and about how the economy was terrible. These podcasts are disproportionately listened to by men of all races. So the stories that these people were hearing were stories that were about how you can't trust the establishment and you should be worried about the economy and that Trump is going to be able to fix all that.
How much do you blame social media for our current political environment?
I think social media has some responsibility, for sure. Particularly algorithmic social media. Because we know that in the two weeks before the election in 2020, Facebook changed their algorithm to promote happy news instead of angry things. And they lost engagement. So they changed it back after the election.
To the extent that we are being rewarded for being angry all the time on social media, I think that's definitely making things worse. It's actively changing norms. Now the norm is to be extremely rude and harassing rather than the traditional way of thinking about politics, which was that you have to be serious when you're talking about the government.
It's like the kids have taken over the elementary school, like the principal is gone. And so we're just going to get rid of all the rules. Trump's approach was basically, “I'm just going to say all the things that you're not supposed to say. And that's going to be really fun.” There's probably some connection with social media, but I think that political leadership still has a lot to do with it. I don't think that social media alone would have done this if we didn't have political leaders willing to behave this way. It's probably symbiotic in some way.
In recent months, we’ve seen a few prominent examples of left-wing political violence, including the killing of the UnitedHealthcare CEO, as well as acts of violence against Jews that seem to have been motivated by the war in Gaza. Are you concerned that we could be on the brink of more left-wing political violence?
The antisemitic violence is not surprising to me in that the language used to describe what’s happening in Gaza is very similar to the kind of existential language that is prevalent in right-wing, conspiracy theorist circles. It's about genocide. It's about good versus evil. You know, you cannot compromise with evil. So I'm not surprised that there's been violence coming out of the Left related to this issue. That’s not to say that this kind of rhetoric is not appropriate. It really does feel existential, I think, to a lot of people.
In terms of the UnitedHealthcare CEO, I'm not sure how political that was. I feel like that was done by a guy who was just troubled and struggling.
Some of the response to that murder from left-wing commentators was not exactly full-throated condemnation.
I didn't hear that as much from elites as I heard it from random people on Bluesky. There’s a real difference in the standards that we have for Democrats and Republicans these days. When one Democrat on Bluesky says something, it's taken to be emblematic of the entire party. But most of the Democratic leadership really doesn't use extremist language. Whereas on the right, we see extremist language coming from the president of the United States. I think a lot of Democratic voters are really frustrated with the lack of passion coming from the Democratic leadership. They think the party is not being angry enough.
Talk to me about the role that institutions can play in moderating the behavior of Americans. Am I wrong to think that part of the problem with polarization in the US right now is that people are not participating in institutions, or trusting institutions, the way that they used to in the past?
The Bowling Alone argument suggests that we're not part of communities in the way that we used to be. And communities are important because that's how we get our norms. That's how our norms are enforced. So to the extent that we're not part of communities anymore, then norms are not being enforced to the same degree.
I do think that COVID played a pretty big role in ways that I don't think we're going to be able to see for a long time. What COVID did was drive people online and away from each other. We're now having political conversations online. And a lot of people went online during COVID to find comforting information. In that context, comforting information was “COVID is not real. It's not going to kill you. It's not going to kill anybody.” That type of misinformation was really attractive during a global pandemic.
We have institutions in part to tell people what's real and what's not real. Those institutions are failing. I've listened to focus groups with Trump supporters, and the things that they're talking about are things I've never heard of before. These people have entire soap operas that they're worried about that are not real, that are not based in science. The type of institutions that might help these people find some more information and look at the evidence are collapsing, if they haven’t already collapsed. I don't know who can play that role anymore. Our political leadership is pushing misinformation and condemning science, and eliminating evidence from government websites.
I get the sense from reading your work that you don't consider the looting and property destruction that have attended some political protests in recent years to be political violence. Am I reading that correctly?
That kind of thing can certainly be political violence. But in general, the thing that I'm most worried about is hurting people. That’s the political violence that I think is the most damaging to democracy. Protest is democratic. Protest is 100 percent protected by the First Amendment. Protests are often a sign of a healthy democracy and people having their voices heard. So, to the extent that property damage is associated with protests, I don't want to paint all protests as violent.
While you're obviously deeply concerned about political violence, you take pains not to say that all political violence is bad. When is political violence justified in your mind?
If we ask Americans, “Was the Civil War justified?” Most people would say, “Yes, we needed to end slavery.” The vast majority of Americans would also say that the Revolutionary War was justified. So the context is always important. And a lot of the questions that we tend to ask about political violence are context-free. A lot depends on what the violence is trying to achieve. In general, we tend to agree that violence that is meant to increase the level of equality in the country is more justified than violence that's intended to oppress people. The context matters. Political violence is sometimes okay if we're fighting for a more just future.
What gives you hope these days?
The reason everything is so hard and tense and polarized right now is that we're fighting over some pretty existential questions about who belongs in America and who deserves the full rights and protection of the Constitution.
As a country, we have made so much progress toward racial equality and gender equality over the last fifty years. My mom couldn't get a bank account without her husband's permission until she was twenty-eight years old. We just marked the sixtieth anniversary of the Voting Rights Act. We've only had the right to same-sex marriage for ten years. In historical terms, these changes have been extremely rapid.
That kind of change can’t happen without some kind of backlash from the people who previously held power. There's no way for us to make progress without living through this resistance to it. We're just in the struggle right now. But it would be extremely naive to imagine that we could make this much progress and not have a strong backlash.
Maybe that makes my final question irrelevant. I was going to ask you where we should be making investments if the goal was to reduce polarization and political violence in the United States. But maybe you think polarization is necessary right now because we need to fight an authoritarian movement on the right.
I certainly don't think polarization is always a bad thing. The world was polarized against the Nazis during World War II, right? I think polarization becomes bad, specifically within a democracy, when it obscures reality and political accountability. If we're so polarized that we can't believe anything bad about our own side, and that we will never vote against our own side, that undermines democracy.
If I were putting a lot of money somewhere, I would actually put it into local media. I would like to rebuild local news because many people will only trust information when they’re reading it next to the high school football scores and whatever is happening at the farmer's market on Saturday. To the extent that people trust media anymore, they trust their local media. And there is really good evidence that the decline of local media has increased political polarization.
This interview is part of The Polarization Project, an interview series by Greg Berman, distinguished fellow of practice at The Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, co-editor of Vital City, and co-author of "Gradual: The Case for Incremental Change in a Radical Age."This article originally appeared on HFG.org and has been republished with permission.