J CURVE THEORY A theory of social movements that argues that movements are most likely to occur when a period of rising expectations is followed by sharp and rapidly worsening conditions for members of deprived groups.
With more than $1.5 billion dollars spent on the Presidential campaign advertising the worst about each candidate and after the massive mobilization of voters that went to the polls last week, it is conceivable for the reaction of those felt left outside the realm of government to become radicalized and commit acts outside of the law. Before you read on, I must condemn any action outside of the law especially if it causes harm to yourself or others. But I will try to explain social factors through examples that could lead to radicalization.
Already in the week since the election results were announced, a young man by the name of Andrew Veal has committed suicide at the WTC site and there has been rioting and looting at the NC GOP headquarters where it was actually set on fire. This is the first of what I will predict of many acts that have a very threatening potential to affect the larger population's civil rights and the very workings of our government.
The most common example of J-curve theory being actualized into radical behavior was in the years after Clinton was elected. During the Reagan and Bush 1 Presidencies, pro-lifers felt that they were so close to having Roe vs. Wade being overthrown. Upon Clinton's ascendancy, there was a rash of abortion doctors that were murdered across the nation in separate incidences, and as I am sure you remember, the rise of Eric Rudolph.
What happens is a severe disillusionment with the process and a feeling of powerlessness and a feeling of being repressed. This manifestation in the wrong person can act itself out in the worst possible ways.
Let us look at the two worst cases of domestic terrorism in the United States: One being the Oklahoma City bombing and the other being the DC Sniper, both were committed by Gulf War Veterans. (You could possibly include the Anthrax mailer in there, who I believe was a Gulf War Vet--no more packages were sent after the Federal Government finally admitted that Gulf War Syndrome actually did exist--fact check me on that but I am pretty sure that I am right).
Timothy McVeigh and John Lee Muhammad were trained soldiers who had the means and the know how to inflict mass violence on people. Somehow, along the way from being a soldier back into civilian life both felt as though their expectations of their government were let down. For McVeigh, he felt as though he was in Iraq for the wrong reasons, was subsequently robbed of the opportunity to join the Special forces, and then saw what he perceived as his government infringing on the rights of its citizens with the incidents at Ruby Ridge and at Waco. For Muhammad, he felt as though he fought in an unjust war in which the massive might of the US military overwhelmed a weak enemy--for oil and not for freedom. Upon his return, the traumas of war made it difficult for his family to have him around. He converted to Islam, left his family, and is on record sympathizing Al Qaeda and September 11th. The feelings of loss and alienation that both men felt as well as the unfulfilled promise that their nation had given them pushed them towards radicalization and the unthinkable.
We now have very serious social factors that contribute to the radicalization of Americans now at this point that we need to be aware of. We have soldiers who have been on extended tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. There seems to be at least some questioning on the cause for the war. (WMD, imminent threat, etc.) They have not been accepted as liberators but as occupiers. There is evidence of higher suicide rates of our troops in Iraq (perhaps the most powerful evidence of disillusionment). There is evidence of our troops being poorly supplied. There have been cuts to Veterans benefits (housing, healthcare, and pay). Lastly, is the trauma of a low intensity guerilla conflict which is designed to be demoralizing and can make resettlement back into ordinary life very difficult (note rising levels of domestic violence on military bases).
The thing that worries me most though is the difference between now and the Vietnam era, where there was a non-violent peace movement that was affecting the government and the public consciousness. I do not believe that it is having the same results as it did in the 1960's. It has been rendered null and void by advances in technology and crowd control. Simply put, millions can take to the street; scream their heads off, and have a sit in and the authority can just have a conference call and do what they please.
In this time after an election when one side has been soundly defeated, I must condemn those thinking of radicalization and turmoil. The Democrats can be rendered obsolete by one act of desperation by a single individual. On the other hand, a word of caution to the victors: Many have just given a lot for what they believe, nerves are on edge and they don't think that they have a voice in the democratic process. The Democrats must be included, consulted, and most importantly respected for their differences. It is up to the leadership of this nation (which now consists mainly of Republicans) to heal and unify a very bitter and divided nation.