Dartmouth Professor Says Partisan Violence May Be A Phantom Threat
A recent wave of public polling and academic work has pushed the idea that political violence is about to skyrocket into the public eye. A closer look at the data, though, paints a more complicated picture that undercuts some of the louder claims. This piece walks through the main findings, what they mean, and why alarm bells might be premature.
What The Research Shows
One research effort from a Polarization Research Lab aims to “monitor public support for political violence and democratic norm violations,” and the results complicate the fear narrative. Instead of broad-based, partisan readiness for violent action, the patterns show pockets of support that vary by issue, intensity, and individual framing. The headline that both parties are equally primed for violence does not hold up when you unpack the survey items and response distributions.
The research highlights that certain actions—vandalism, assault, arson, and use of deadly weapon—register differently across partisan lines, with one side showing higher willingness on some measures. The raw numbers point to asymmetry rather than parity in those risky categories. That asymmetry matters because it changes how we should prioritize prevention and public safety interventions.
The lead researcher has described the most dramatic fears as a “phantom threat.” That phrase calls attention to the gap between sensational headlines and the measured probabilities that emerge from careful analysis. Saying something is a phantom threat does not deny risk; it challenges the scale and immediacy that many assume are present.
Why Context Matters
Surveys ask specific, often hypothetical questions, and context skews answers a lot. People might say they support a violent tactic in the abstract or as a reaction to an extreme scenario, but that does not necessarily translate to real-world planning or action. Understanding motivation, social networks, and opportunity is essential before concluding that rhetoric equals readiness.
Another layer is who endorses what and why—age, education, media exposure, and local conditions all shape responses. If a small subgroup with particular grievances shows elevated support for violence, the right response is targeted intervention, not blanket panic. Policymakers and journalists should focus on actionable signals rather than amplifying every alarming line in a data table.
Methodology also matters: question wording, sampling frame, and the timing of surveys shape the results. Short-term spikes in anger can register in polling without leading to sustained or organized action. Researchers who track these dynamics over time provide a far clearer picture than snap polls designed for instant headlines.
That said, dismissing all concern would be irresponsible. Even a small number of committed actors can cause disproportionate harm, and the social cost of political violence is high. The challenge is balancing vigilance with accuracy so resources go where they will actually reduce harm.
The conversation should move from fear-driven narratives to practical responses: strengthen targeted law enforcement where risk concentrates, invest in community interventions, and improve data transparency so independent analysts can verify claims. Clear, evidence-based strategies reduce both the incidence of violence and the public’s sense of impending collapse.
In short, raw alarm about an imminent explosion of partisan violence often overstates the case. Data show fractures and flashpoints, not a uniform march toward chaos. A sober, focused approach—grounded in careful analysis and smart prevention—will keep communities safer than sensational warnings ever will.