oprah winfrey, looking at this stage. this is another program guide. watch online. "washington journa. host: "washington journaljourna. welcome back to." welcome back to washington journal.

associate professor of science at john hopkins. we are mapping violent hostility, and looking at democracy. >> think is so much for having me. this is the focus of the research. we are facing global democracy. we are looking at the work. >> we have increased quality. this is looking at all of the voices. we are looking at the partisanship. we are looking at the political violence in the u.s. we have

entire levels of political violence and intense threats. >> is the washington post. violent, political threats. this was part of the american democracy. what do you think is behind that surge? what is causing that? >> this is the increase over the last many years. in general, we have larger numbers of threat levels to elected officials. they were trying to stay in office. we are stopping them from doing their job throughout the day.

they have also intended to intimidate people from wanting to do their job. the threat can be an effective way to silence who might otherwise stand up to it. >> tell me the nature of political threats and violence. how has this evolved? we are looking against elected officials and judges. looking at a series of bomb threats. this is that the state capitol. >> people are feeling this. they are looking into this. this is after donald trump's and ministration. a lot of this is the republicans posting this.

we are coming to your house, and telling them that they are coming through with a s.w.a.t. team. they were trying to get months to recover. we have active threats. they were bringing death threats. they were looking at different things. they were going all the way through the administration. this seems like during times -- times were trinity was being threatened, like during his impeachment. this is all about the election.

we are looking at the substitution of losing power. in some way, they had been insulted. >> we will take your call to our guests. from john hopkins. call us on our line. >> you can also text us. 202408 8003. also on facebook and on x. they were shifting, regarding their willingness to accept lyrical violence. >> we are trying to ask people and regular americans how you

can use violence to achieve your political goals. this is the other political party. in 2017, this was important for texas. 10% to open the pregnant -- relevant republicans. looking at these impeachments, the number among republicans went up 20%. looking at the approval of these actions. for democrats, it wasn't the same. they were not under threats. they were trying to achieve political goals. >> we were looking at another

tracker online. this is a protective democracy.org. we have this tracker, currently impacted within several categories. this includes individual liberties. can you explain how this works? where does the data come from? >> we develop this project. largely because we were looking at other additives within the public. we know certain things about political violence, and what it does in other countries. what is the impact of violence on our democracy today? what we did, we collected a panel of a few different experts on political violence. this includes academics and think tanks. they have done political violence around the world. we asked them to fill out the survey. this is assessing the agreement to which these eight pillars of democracy are working.

they have election integrity, judicial oversights with the executives, and freedom of expression. this includes all of these americans. we have found from that, we have now done two ways of this on a current basis. currently, the level of worry about the experts on political violence and democracy, is not low. it is not as high as it could be. we are looking at what democracy had done to fall. currently, it is at about 2.6. >> that is a little bit over halfway. >> that is going to reflect a different score. we have significant erosion of these implications because of violence. this is in danger of falling. current score, is between not being good, and about to fall apart. >> what is the american public

supposed to do with that? what are you recommending for a regular american citizen? >> we want this to be a resource for people to teach these things over time. they have a baseline. they were looking at what these experts were thinking. ultimately, we are able to show trend lines. are they getting more or less worried? we have a barometer. what are they doing to understand political violence? what are they worrying about today? >> we are looking at the colors. first up, keith, denver, colorado, online for democrats. >> good morning. interesting work.

in the late 80s, we got rid of the fairness doctor. this is directly tied to media fragmentation. we are seeing increased polarization for about 30 years. this correlates to the violence and threats that are particularly looking at it. this includes christian nationalism. we know we have two of those primary threats. this is for the first time in history. we have had partisan news in the 1990s. prior to that, we have a lot on the right. we believed that talk radio, and rush limbaugh, was huge. all of that programming was anti-liberal. as a result of that, they had a

complete ecosystem. this was part of an alternative reality. these are not news stations. they are information networks. they are not what we call objective news. >> that is really good insight. in my own research, i have combined that effective consolidation. this is part of the news and media. as with the rise of social media. also, some deep, demographic changes that are happening within the two bodies. after the civil rights legislation of the 60s, it had become increasingly different from these democrats. graduating from the republican parties. this is largely white and

evangelical. this is the perfect storm of media resources. we have demographic changes, and cultural changes emerging. every election that we have is a contest over who we are. they may agree with you. it is dangerous for us to have the entire media ecosystems. they don't even refer to each other. we don't see that as much on the right. there isn't as much self reflection and searching for evidence.

we are looking at a combination of these media effects. republicans are coming towards different types of people. they are talking to each other. we don't know anyone else who does. >> let's talk the republican in california. hi there. >> thank you for having me on. i have two questions. have you done any research? do you have any statistics? this is political. people like prime ministers and presidents, looking at assassinations around the world. this is what has happened.

how should i say, this is aggressive. we have many thoughts on when donald trump was elected in 2016. we have so much anger towards him. some of this was the work that worked on the cabinet. they're trying to be pushing back. this is all at the restaurant. that went on forever. it is still going on. >> thank you. >> we know about the political systems, and when they break down. we have one of the big predictors of that. we were talking about the last caller. we know when a political system in a country was right here realizing themselves around racial or ethnic lines.

that becomes them still breaking down political violence. they are not suggesting they are going into it right now. it does seem like the society is becoming divided. it is really hard for us to compromise on. that is when political options fall apart. it is very difficult to have an election that has another reflecting status of religious and racial groups. >> obama's administration had the most assassination of threats or attempts. this is becoming more hostile. at this point, they are prominent, political figures.

i think there still is anger at donald trump. they were saying things that were explicitly violating the norms. they have different patterns of speech talking about women and minority groups. honestly, running government in a way that felt much more like a different personality. this was hostile towards donald trump. they were quite hostile towards him. from my understanding, this is a deep worry from the magnetic government democracy function. >> we havea question for you over text ssagfrom chris, in laredo, ohio. are you able to termine if the threats of violence

related? is this from overseas? this is going to be attempted murder. this is what it is going to lead to. someone is looking at this incident. >> this is extremely dangerous. especially for people who have group intensities. this is disproportionately targeted. this is black americans, deftly going to have a different thing. the international threats, they have a group called the bridge divide initiative. they actually track the number of threats for local officials. this is how they are being threatened. it's a really interesting day to look at.

i don't know whether it is possible to know whether they are coming. this is for a phone call that has not been impossible to mimic. this is part of the u.s. area code. this is within the american united states. we have voicemail recordings. we have one of the scariest kinds. this is all really dangerous. i don't actually know the answer, whether it is international or real. in these phone calls, they seem to be pretty authentic. >> going to manhattan, new york, next. independent. good morning. thank you so much.

i just wanted to get that expressed. i have another question. donald trump, seems to be using the cabinet to send threats. we are looking at these credible threats. this is the most interesting. about a week or two ago, we were looking at the ballot.

this is all he has done. he posted this on social media. this is her contact information. they do this a couple of days ago. lo and behold, they were looking at the new york times. the secretary of state, is getting it going to read >> were they doing this inside social media? they were trying to get it worse down. it must be someone leaving.

we can link these threats to their social media. this is all about it. he knows this installation from these people out here. it is possible that they know that that would be the end result. why do you think they held this accessible for craft together? >> we are going to get a response. go ahead. what is the difference between delivering a threat, and encouraging a threat? they were trying to deliver a threat. the person that delivered a threat, was looking at it. i did a lot of my own research. we have political leaders in general. i was trying to discourage all of this. we have violent approaches

within the politics. we have done different experiences with these people looking at donald trump and president joe biden. we are using these people for it. it is quite easy to do. we have a lot of responsibility. we are looking at our responsibility to seek responsibility from those supporters. that's good and bad. it's easy to discourage violence. they are refusing to discourage violence. they are simply encouraging it. one thing that we should be doing as a society, and as an electorate, is really reminding elected leaders that they have responsibility to keep the

peace. they need to try to make sure that the stress and violence actions are not occurring. when they don't do that, they are explicitly discouraging it. when they don't, we have a key situation. we should be asking more of our leaders. >> we have a textfrom kevin in delaware. he's asking if they are considering the blm rights political violence? >> lots of different political violence. one is a threat, and one is actual violence. the black lives matter riots, were looking at 96% of them that were peaceful. property damage is a real tool. to damage property, and to make chaos, is a way of using

political violence and chaos to affect these political outcomes. that black lives matter riot, happened in that summer. it did have these outcomes. what type of violence is occurring? what are the goals? the difference between the black lives matter protest, in the january 6, 2021 capitol right, that they were not attempting to stop a political process. the january 6 attacks, the point of it was to stop the electoral certification of the election. that was directed towards the democratic leaders. this was more about raising the the voice of people who were not being heard. it does not impact a government, it did not create a situation in which our laws could not be enacted. it was, in terms of a protest, generally that is to raise up voices of people who feel

silenced. so you can have a violence in both domains. i think the result of that violence really matters or the intent of that violence really matters and particularly when we have violence occurring in order to stop political officials from doing their job or to prevent legal processes from occurring, that is a different type of threat to a democracy than protest activity that becomes violent, which is the first place it is protected under the first amendment and then it gets out of control. there is no protection under the first amendment for stopping the counts of votes for example. >> let's get one more call from larry in new york. republican. >> with all due respect, violence, the root of violence, what causes the root of violence is anger.

what made these people angry is a very extreme divisive media that is so thorough in their divisiveness that me, as a black republican in the last four years or eight years really since trump had first taken office, one of my friends was a democrat and said just try to come to the other side to listen and show them the evidence and show them the information that we on the right have to counter whatever information the left has. they will not give me a chance. they do not want to hear it. it is like i said, their job is done so thorough. they say that the liberal blm thing, do you remember biden? do with the chief said?

these people are divisive. >> larry, let's get a response. last word. >> yeah, so basically yes, violence comes out of anger and frustration and passion. it usually erupts when democracy does not seem to be working and you are right that democrats i think in 2016 and the state of virginia 70% of hillary clinton supporters had never met a trump support and 70% of supporters had never met a clinton supporter. we are in these isolated bubbles and it is illegal to talk across them when we have different sources of information or we are privileging certain points over other points think this is the most important to me and the other side will say this is the most important thing to me and so those conversations are really really difficult to have a book but i would argue that they are important to have and to keep having not only to explain your side but actually again my asking questions to say why do

you believe that, what event in your life do you think led to this or what part of you is really inclined to believe what you believe. curiosity towards people that disagree with us is important and i think it will lead to more open and honest conversation between democrats and republicans. they said they are in the same places. i think those conversations are working and they should be had but they need to be had with more of an aspect of curiosity rather than lecturing her teacher and trying to tell our friends who don't agree with us what to think. >> liliana mason, professor of clinical science at john hopkins institute and coauthor of radical american partisanship mapping violent hostility causes and consequences. thank you so much for joining us today. >> thank you. >> welcome back. we are joined by dena titus, a democrat from nevada and a member of the foreign affairs and homeland security committees. welcome to the program. >> thank you. >> you serve on the homeland

security committee. can you respond to yesterday's proceedings of republicans efforts to impeach secretary mayor,. >> it was a very politically big hearing. we have had 15 hearings so far and not come with any kind of solution or any kind of bipartisan plan to deal with the crisis of the border, and the senates, they are working in a bipartisan way and with the secretary, but not so in the house. the speakers were three republican attorneys general from states that went for donald trump. our witness was a legal scholar throughout the country known for his work on impeachment. all the questions were just blasting the biden administration showing pictures of the border, talking about the problems but not coming with any solutions and the scholar said if you disagree with the policy, those are not

grounds under the constitution for impeachment. impeachment has to be or high crimes and misdemeanors, not for bad administrations. >> what are your republican colleagues saying? how would that benefit the border situation if the secretary was removed because he would just be replaced by somebody else that president joe biden would nominate. >> that is right and that is the question i asked. i am at the end of the road, so i go last. i am the wrap up hitter and i said all of this does not explain how you were going to solve your problem. we had one person from montana talking about fentanyl, one from oklahoma talking about marijuana growth and the one another when he was all concerned in missouri about terrorists. i said if you get rid of my organs, how is this going to

change the administration's policy or solve any of those problems, to which they had no answer. >> where are we on the border security immigration, what is happening with the discussions on that? >> we have been working on this issue since i was first elected in 2008 and we have not moved very far. right now there are several senators who are trying to come with a bipartisan proposal. they have kind of gotten stalled over the parole issue in the house. nothing is being done, it is just an attack on administration. they passed house resolution 2 at the very beginning of this term that was just kind of outrageous and had no chance of passing, so we are just in limbo and this is a huge issue in my district and everywhere, but across the southwest. >> if you would like to join the conversation with congresswoman titus, you can do so on our line. independence two 748-8000 to.

speaker johnson has vowed to stick with hr to. tell us about the bill and why you would oppose it. >> writers attach some things that had to do with abortion that were separating families. it was a return to just build the wall. i have never seen a wall you could not climb over, so we don't believe that will work and it just is not going anywhere in the senate. to your previous point, the republican leading these conversations made the point that you can switch secretaries but what is that going to do to make you have got to come up with a solution. in my district and what household you will have somebody who has been undocumented, somebody on tv, somebody who is legal and somebody who does not know what they are and so it is a complex issue. >> let's talk about some

solutions because i think you agree something has to be done at the border. what do you think what are your options? >> biden sent a supplemental program to us that included funding for additional personnel. they all tell you at the border, we have been to the border, that they need more resources for hiring more people, more immigration judges to decide the asylum cases, more technology, not a razor wire, but may be drones or things that could use the latest technology and we need to strengthen the forces of entry because that is where the fentanyl is coming through, not from a family swimming across the border or across the river. >> how would you characterize items performance so far on the border? >> he knows we need more resources. they are doing the best they can with what they have. he has certainly pushed diplomacy into the area where people are coming from, not just mexico but beyond and

trying to look at countries. i think hess then stymied by the lack of attention by the congress is so it is really up to us to change the law. >> i want to ask you about funding because the budget is going to run out. so what do you think is going to happen? is there going to be another cr? where are you on the funding debate? >> i was optimistic when i was home over the weekend and they said they had reached a deal between the speaker and leader schumer that they had agreed to the top lines which were pretty much the same as the president had agreed to with mccarthy, but in the back of your mind you know that is why they throughout mccarthy as speaker and already the maca wing is saying they are not going to go for this. they have got to show off their power by defeating their own rule for bringing some other bill that was unrelated.

don't push us or we will get rid of you, so now it is looking more and more like we will have to have another short- term cr because i don't know what those republicans are going to do. >> we will get calls for someone to ask you about aid to israel and ukraine. where is that? do you think that will go anywhere connect >> that was part of that negotiation that was going on between the leaders. i don't think, there are reasons for supporting israel, other reasons for supporting ukraine and neither of those reasons has anything to do with the border so that should not be policies decided on their own merit separately. i support both cases, but everybody seems to be wanting to add that to the funding bill. >> what kind of influence do you think the united states is having on israel regarding how they are executing their war in gaza, and the calls that they are violating international law

connect >> both the president and secretary lincoln have pushed the issue that we support israel's right to defend themselves. we stand behind israel, but it has to do, it has to be done within a certain proportionate way and according to the international rules. we have pushed for more aid, more humanitarian aid to the people of gaza, and secretary lincoln just got back from meeting with people in the region hoping to find some original solutions so this conflict it does not spread beyond israel. >> let's talk to callers. hank is first in south carolina. republican. >> thank you. i am just concerned about the immigration, these kids going to school, they bring in an imprint and they just come across the border yesterday and

they are taking up all the time from teachers trying to teach students. they don't have the time. so it is messing everything up kenny respond to that? >> well, i agree with you that it is a challenge. it is not just a challenge for housing, for medical assistance, just trying to find work for people who come, but also the education system, you are right, many of these children don't speak english so you have to have english as a second language program to help them to catch up with where our own students are. it becomes a question of resources and we don't want to separate families like with the policy under the trump administration where some people are still looking for their children. he went to keep families together. this is just one of the unintended consequent is i guess not axing the whole

border issue. >> lauren and maryland, democrat. good morning. >> thank you. good morning. i love c-span. thank you for your work. i just went to the hearing yesterday on the impeachment of mayor gus, and one of the things i was confused about is there was this, you know, debate about whether the impeachment turned on a policy difference, which is what the democrats were claiming or whether it was about mallorca's violating the law that has been passed by congress the way he is administering the border and i was hoping that i could hear a little bit about the democratic response to this claim that he is actually violating the law and his policy because that seems like an important claim and i did not hear that addressed by democratic speakers in the hearing. thank you. >> you are right. that is the argument that the

republicans are trying to make and they are trying to type it to dereliction of duty. when you talk about a law that sets up a policy, that is different from a law that is a comical law. he has not been charged with any kind of criminal offense, nothing that has to do with financial issues or bribery, corruption, nothing like that that is the kind of law that is punishable by the criminal court. you said the word yourself, his administration of policy. policy when it is passed by congress is usually the broad and vague and then it is up to the executive branch and to fill in the details as they try to carry out the directive. if you look at the federalist papers look at the minutes from the constitutional convention, you can see that they debated this very issue and madison is the one who said you don't include maladministration. if he did that he would get the senate the authority to just

pick and choose who is going to be president because they are the ones who are getting the trial for impeachment. that is not there. so we don't look at the administration of policy and determinations that are made there. you have to look at an actual violation of some kind of statute and that is just not present. >> on the independent line in new york, denise. >> good morning. >> go ahead. >> i can go ahead >> yes. you are on the air. >> okay. i watched all the trump impeachment hearings. i watched mayorkas's impeachment hearing yesterday and i think it is all a bunch of crap, man. the democrats that call in, i can't stand listening to democrats. i think they better get off the main media and off their vaccines and you know to start thinking for themselves and seeing what is really going on.

>> any comments can >> that is an opinion i am not going to be able to change. >> in north dakota, good morning. >> good morning. >> i would just like to say that president biden and, are the heroes of the house. the ones that are helping them make millions of dollars, meanwhile our taxpayers are paying billions of dollars. you have made a total mess out of this and you want more money to help agents more people in. we need to close the border. that is all i have to say. >> we all agreed that you have to have improvements at the border. you have to close the border and you have to cut some rules for people who want to come to this country.

we were made on immigrants. people came to this country for opportunity and that is what they are doing now, coming to make a better life for their families, they are becoming because of climate change, drought, they don't have any place to farm anymore like you have in north dakota and it is not just the u.s. that is experiencing this and all of the world where there are affluent countries and poor countries, people now with social media can see where opportunities are and they can figure out how to get there. so europe is dealing with this issue, we are dealing with it, it is from the middle east, it is from latin america, so it is a sociological phenomenon, it is not just the president's fault. there is much more to it than that. >> as far as the flow of sentinel coming whether a legally across the border or at ports of entry, can you shine light on that. >> we talked a lot about that. sentinel is something the republicans like to bring up any time he complement the

border and it is a serious problem killing a lot of especially young people. most of the fentynal comes from china through mexico and most of it is through port of entry where it is hidden in trucks or cars or some, not little backpacks that children are bringing over, and this is interesting, most of the fentynal is being smuggled into this country by u.s. citizens, not by the foreign citizens. so you have got to break that spiral and we had an agreement when the president met with the leaders of china to crackdown on that and certainly that is going to be a conversation with mexico as well. >> teresa is next in south carolina, republican. >> yes, i want to say every time i called, it is a new media, the mainstream media is that number one weapon used against the people and i want to also ask the representative that you have with you