Is a recession inevitable?

As the U.S. economy continues to cool down, there is a growing debate over when (rather than whether) the ongoing slowdown will morph into a full-fledged recession. In fact, the real argument is about the timing and depth of the coming downturn.

Some analysts even believe that the U.S. is already in a recession. Given the heightened uncertainty surrounding the near-term economic outlook, there is a need for an objective assessment of the risks and headwinds facing the American economy.

It is helpful to clarify what economists mean by a recession. The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the official arbiter of business cycle turning points in the U.S., identifies and dates recessions based on “a significant decline in economic activity that is spread across the economy and lasts more than a few months.”

Besides closely monitoring the “expenditure-side and income-side estimates of real gross domestic product (GDP and GDI)”, NBER also uses a variety of other indicators of real economic activity, including “real personal income less transfers, nonfarm payroll employment, employment as measured by the household survey, real personal consumption expenditures, wholesale-retail sales adjusted for price changes, and industrial production.”

It is possible that incoming data initially indicate that the U.S. experienced two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth during the first half of 2022. But it is worth noting that two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, while often a useful rule-of-thumb, is not the official definition of a recession in the U.S.

The third estimate of real GDP indicated that the U.S. economy shrank in the first quarter of 2022. But much of the weakness was concentrated in international trade and inventory (two highly volatile components). Meanwhile, consumers continued to spend on services, and businesses continued to invest in equipment and software. There is a distinct possibility that annual revisions of National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) data (expected this September) will result in a substantial upward revision of first quarter 2022 GDP data.

Such an outcome is likely due to the larger-than-normal gap between GDP and GDI data for the first quarter of 2022 — GDI was +1.8 percent while GDP was -1.6 percent (on an annualized basis). GDI is often assumed to be a better real-time indicator of economic conditions, and, in the past, the statistical discrepancy between the two has typically been resolved with GDP getting revised to match GDI. Labor market strength in early 2022 also lends credence to the notion that GDI better reflects underlying economic conditions.

So, while the U.S. economy may have avoided falling into a recession during the first half of 2022, it is definitely not out of the woods. In fact, there are signs that an economic downturn may be hard to avoid over the next 12 months as American households and businesses become increasingly fearful of fast-approaching headwinds.

A few recession indicators with a strong historical track record are worth monitoring for incipient signs of a downturn. The two-year and 10-year segments of the U.S. Treasury yield curve have already inverted, and the three-month and 10-year segments of the yield curve are expected to invert in the not-too-distant future as the Federal Reserve continues its accelerated rate-hike cycle.

Besides yield curve inversions, the so-called Sahm Rule offers a labor market-based recession warning signal. The Sahm Rule “identifies signals related to the start of a recession when the three-month moving average of the national unemployment rate (U3) rises by 0.50 percentage points or more relative to its low during the previous 12 months.”

The headline unemployment rate has been stuck at 3.6 percent in recent months. While non-farm payroll data appear to indicate a still-robust labor market, household survey data suggest that labor market conditions are starting to deteriorate. Rising jobless claims offer another sign that the labor market may be weakening. Tech giants are limiting their hiring, and several corporations have announced job cuts.

Declining consumer sentiment and falling real incomes also highlight the growing risk of a recession. With the Federal Reserve expected to raise its policy rate by another 75-basis point this week (and with further tightening ahead), households (and businesses) are yet to fully experience the economic pain from high interest rates.

The severity of any potential downturn will depend on the extent to which household and corporate balance sheets are negatively impacted. A sustained period of falling asset values and surging borrowing costs will raise the risk of a deeper recession. The drop in financial asset values so far has not been severe enough to raise serious concern either at the Fed or among economists.

While the recent surge in high-yield credit signals a rapid tightening of credit conditions, overall financial conditions and healthy bank balance sheets suggest that, despite a few hiccups, the risk of a serious financial dislocation is quite limited.

The housing market may prove to be ultimate wildcard in this economic cycle. The once red-hot housing market is finally starting to cool and, so far, despite rising mortgage rates and easing demand, the odds favor a soft landing in the real estate sector.

But if interest rates were to surge more than expected and if financial conditions were to deteriorate suddenly, the potential for a sharper downturn in real estate activity cannot be ruled out. Investors have an unusually large exposure to the housing market, and any rush to the exit may trigger a sharp home price correction that affects household and financial sector balance sheets and generates real economic pain. 

Vivekanand Jayakumar is an associate professor of economics at the University of Tampa.

Source: TEST FEED1

Weak grip could be sign of underlying health issues, study finds

Story at a glance


  • The study builds on previous research linking grip strength to mortality, but the new research compares one’s grip to others in terms of sex, age, and body height instead of with the general healthy population.

  • Researchers measured a patient’s grip strength by squeezing a dynamometer – a tool used to measure force – twice with each hand.

  • They found that grip strength slightly less than average for the comparable population could indicate a greater mortality risk.

Hand grip strength could indicate underlying health issues and scientists now have a way to measure what it means for the general population.  

“In general, handgrip strength depends on gender, age, and the height of a person. Our task was to find the threshold related to handgrip strength that would signal a practitioner to do further examinations if a patient’s handgrip strength is below this threshold,” Sergei Scherbov, a researcher at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, said in a news release

“It is similar to measuring blood pressure. When the level of blood pressure is outside of a particular range, the doctor can either decide to prescribe a particular medicine or to send the patient to a specialist for further examination,” Scherbov said. 

The study builds on previous research linking grip strength to mortality. But the new research compares one’s grip to others in terms of sex, age, and body height instead of with the general healthy population.  

Researchers measured a patient’s grip strength by having them squeeze a dynamometer – a tool used to measure force – twice with each hand. 

They found that a grip strength slightly less than average for the comparable population could indicate a greater mortality risk. Yet a stronger grip was not found to decrease risk. 

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news. 

“It is important to point out that we are not suggesting that people should train handgrip strength in particular to decrease mortality risks,” said Sonja Spitzer, a postdoctoral researcher at the Wittgenstein Centre for Demography and Global Human Capital and the University of Vienna. “Most likely, if someone improves their handgrip strength through exercises, there will be no or very little impact on their overall health.” 

“However, low handgrip strength may serve as an indicator of disability because it reflects a low muscle strength, which is associated with a higher risk of death,” Spitzer continued. “A healthy lifestyle and exercise are still the best approaches to sustain good health or to improve it in the long term,” Spitzer concludes. 

READ MORE STORIES FROM CHANGING AMERICA 

DEPRESSION IS LIKELY NOT CAUSED BY A CHEMICAL IMBALANCE IN THE BRAIN, STUDY SAYS 

WHY PUT SOLAR PANELS ON THE SURFACE OF WATER? 

WHY HOMEOWNERSHIP IS BECOMING INCREDIBLY TOUGH FOR YOUNG PEOPLE 

FLORIDA SCHOOL BOARD REJECTS NEW SEX EDUCATION TEXTBOOKS 

THOUSANDS REPORT CHANGES TO MENSTRUAL BLEEDING AFTER COVID-19 VACCINE, STUDY SHOWS 

Source: TEST FEED1

Murkowski tests positive for COVID-19

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is quarantining at her home in Alaska after testing positive for COVID-19. 

“After experiencing flu like symptoms I recently tested positive for COVID-19. I will be following guidance and advice from doctors and will be quarantining at home in Alaska while continuing my work remotely,” Murkowski said on Twitter on Monday.

The Alaska senator had been fully vaccinated and boosted, her office said.

She posted on Twitter about receiving her first dose last year, saying, “Alaska is leading the charge in distribution of #COVID19 vaccinations. I’m proud to have joined my fellow Alaskans in getting vaccinated. There is hope at the end of this long dark tunnel.” 

The virus has been circulating in Congress, and Murkowski joins several other lawmakers who’ve tested positive in recent days. 

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) announced he’d been infected Monday morning, just a few hours before the Alaska senator.

Reps. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) and Sens. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) and Tom Carper (D-Del.) tested positive last week.

President Biden is taking the antiviral pill Paxlovid as he quarantines in the White House after testing positive Thursday. The White House reports that no close contacts of the president have been diagnosed since his test.

Source: TEST FEED1

LGBTQ+ Americans face greater health care barriers in rural areas, study finds

Story at a glance


  • LGBTQ+ Americans living in rural communities face greater barriers to accessing health care than LGBTQ+ people in urban areas, new research has found.

  • Many physicians in rural communities may be unfamiliar with LGBTQ+ issues and identities and may be unequipped to address unique LGBTQ+ health care concerns. LGBTQ+ patients in rural areas are also more likely to face discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

  • Obtaining adequate health care in rural America is not an issue exclusive to the LGBTQ+ community, and individuals living in rural communities are at greater risk for poor health outcomes, the CDC has said.

LGBTQ+ Americans in rural areas face greater barriers to accessing adequate health care, new research has found.

In a study published earlier this year in the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, researchers and physicians practicing in the Appalachian regions of Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia said LGBTQ+ patients outside of urban centers are more likely to struggle to find medical professionals that are familiar with LGBTQ+ issues or identities, a potential detriment to the health of sexual and gender minorities.

Patients in rural areas are also more likely to face stigma around their sexual orientation or gender identity, according to the study, and many practicing physicians in rural communities are likely to have a worldview that is rooted in “heteronormativity,” or a belief that heterosexuality is the normal or preferred sexual orientation.

Doctors in rural America are also largely unequipped to address unique health challenges faced by members of the LGBTQ+ community, like disproportionate rates of depression and anxiety.


America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.


“Research into sexual and gender minorities is growing quickly, but mainly in large urban centers,” the study’s lead author, Zachary Ramsey of the University of West Virginia, said in a news release.

“There are a lot of differences between urban and rural populations for a general population, so it stands to reason that there would be a lot of differences between urban and rural LGBTQ individuals,” Ramsey said. “Without more studies of LGBTQ rural individuals specifically, these differences will not be known, and policies and rural LGBTQ Center programming can only use an urban population for guidance.”

Ramsey’s findings are consistent with those of similar studies. Research published earlier this month in the journal JAMA Surgery found that most transgender adults seeking gender-affirming surgical care leave their home state to get it – even if it means paying additional out-of-pocket medical expenses. 

Researchers in that study said one driving force could be a lack of health care professionals in places like the South and Midwest – two largely rural regions that are becoming increasingly hostile places for gender-affirming physicians to practice.

A 2020 study found that only 20 states had at least one surgeon capable of providing gender-affirming genital surgery to transgender adults, and most practices were located in the Northeast or the West.

According to the Census Bureau, more than 46 million Americans, or roughly 15 percent of the U.S. population, live in rural communities. Individuals living in rural areas are at greater risk for poor health outcomes, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said, in part because they often have to travel long distances to receive specialty or emergency care.

Overall, just 11 percent of physicians practice in rural communities, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. Of the more than 7,200 federally designated health professional shortage areas, roughly 60 percent are in rural areas.

“Bringing more providers into rural areas would be a great benefit,” Ramsey said, “not only to the individuals who have to drive a few hours to see an endocrinologist for hormones, but to the general population that can sometimes struggle to find appropriate services.”

Source: TEST FEED1

TBS cancels Samantha Bee’s ‘Full Frontal’

“Full Frontal,” the late-night TBS show hosted by Samantha Bee, has been canceled by the network.

A TBS spokesperson said in a Monday statement provided to ITK that the cancelation was a result of some “difficult, business-based decisions” made as part of its “new programming strategy.”

“’Full Frontal With Samantha Bee’ will not return to TBS,” the statement confirmed.

The TBS show, the most prominent late-night program to feature a woman host, premiered in 2016.

Bee, a former “Daily Show” correspondent, made headlines over the years for her biting political commentary.

In 2017, Bee hosted a much-buzzed about event, “Not the White House Correspondents’ Dinner” in Washington, held on the eve of the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

The frequent critic of former President Trump swiped at the then-commander in chief during the pseudo-gala, which was filmed as a TV special for her show, making references to allegations against him of sexual assault and harassment.

In 2018, Bee apologized after referring to the president’s daughter and his then-senior adviser, Ivanka Trump, using a vulgar term.

“I hate that this distracted from more important issues,” Bee, 52, said at the time.

A statement from Bee’s spokeswoman on Monday said that the comedian was “honored” to have hosted her Emmy Award-winning series for seven seasons.

“Bee made television history in the late-night space, paving the way for female voices in what has traditionally been, and continues to be a male dominated landscape,” the statement said.

“Full Frontal,” the statement from Bee’s rep noted, “consistently broke barriers with Sam and her team boldly using political satire to entertain, inform and empower viewers, while embracing critically underrepresented stories, particularly about women.”

Last month, despite a positive COVID-19 diagnosis, Bee appeared on her show to deliver an impassioned defense of abortion rights just ahead of reports that the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade was imminent.

“I’ll be honest, I feel hopeless. I feel rage that every woman in America has been left to make a plan of how to take care of themselves in a country that values a zygote more than them,” Bee said in the remotely filmed segment.

In a June decision, the Supreme Court reversed the 1973 landmark ruling that provided a constitutional right to abortion.

In its statement about axing “Full Frontal,” TBS said it celebrated the show’s “extraordinarily talented cast and crew,” and that it would “look forward to exploring new opportunities to work with them in the future.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Exercising more than recommended could prolong your life: study

Story at a glance


  • Exceeding recommended weekly levels of exercise could reduce adults’ all-cause mortality risks, according to new research.

  • However, after a certain threshold of exercise time, no additional benefits were seen.

  • The findings reinforce the importance of regular exercise.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommends American adults complete 150-300 minutes of moderate physical activity each week or 75-150 minutes per week of vigorous physical activity. 

Although a 2018 study found around 80 percent of U.S. adults and adolescents are insufficiently active, those who exceed HHS’ thresholds are more likely to live longer, according to new research published in the American Heart Association’s (AHA) journal Circulation.

The study also found no harmful cardiovascular health effects among individuals completing four times the minimum recommended physical activity levels. However, exceeding this threshold also did not result in any additional reduction in death risks. 


America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.


In an effort to better understand whether exercise above recommended amounts led to benefits or drawbacks to individuals’ cardiovascular health, researchers assessed the physical activity and medical records of more than 100,000 people over the span of 30 years. 

While those who met the recommended levels of moderate and vigorous activity had a 20-21 percent and 19 percent lower risk of all-cause mortality, respectively, participants who completed two to four times that amount exhibited even greater risk reductions. 

Those in the latter group who completed more vigorous activity than recommended had a 21-23 percent lower risk of death, while those who completed more moderate activity saw a 26-31 percent lower risk. 

Data were gleaned from the Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-up Study,  from 1988 through 2018. The majority of participants assessed were white females, while average participant age was 66. 

Measurements of physical activity were self-reported. Exercise like walking, weightlifting and calisthenics were classified as moderate activity; jogging, running, swimming and biking were considered vigorous activities. 

In general, physical activity at or above recommended levels was associated with lower risks of cardiovascular disease-related death and all-cause death.

“We have known for a long time that moderate and intense levels of physical exercise can reduce a person’s risk of both atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and mortality,” said former AHA president Donna K. Arnett, who was not involved in the study, in a press release. 

“We have also seen that getting more than 300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity or more than 150 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical exercise each week may reduce a person’s risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease even further, so it makes sense that getting those extra minutes of exercise may also decrease mortality,” Arnett added.  

Source: TEST FEED1

These are the states with the highest monkeypox cases relative to population

Story at a glance


  • Monkeypox cases have been detected in nearly all 50 states in the U.S.

  • The virus is transmitted through close contact with an infected person.

  • Washington, D.C., New York and Georgia have the highest case rates by population. 

In the U.S., there have been a total of 2,891 monkeypox cases reported, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It has been detected in 44 states and the District of Columbia. Some of the states with the highest number of cases include New York, California, Illinois and Florida. Below we break down some of the numbers according to total population of each state or territory. 

Washington, D.C. has the highest case rate by population. With 110 cases and a population of just under 690,000, monkeypox has been detected in about 0.016 percent of residents. 

Next highest is New York State, which leads the overall number of cases with 900 reported cases. And with a population of more than 20 million, that makes the case rate by population about 0.0045 percent. 

Georgia follows with monkeypox detected in about 0.002 percent of the population, with a total of 211 cases and a population of 10.7 million. 

The next several states: 

Illinois: 0.0019 percent (238 cases, about 12.8 million people) 

Maryland: 0.0011 percent (71 cases, about 6.2 million people) 

Florida: 0.0011 percent (247 cases, about 21.5 million people) 

Massachusetts: 0.0011 percent (79 cases, about 7 million people) 

California: 0.0009 percent (356 cases, about 39.5 million people) 

Government officials in the U.S. are deploying smallpox vaccines that are able to help prevent illness from the monkeypox virus. Disease from the virus can last 2 to 4 weeks, and case fatality ratio is about 3 to 6 percent, according to the World Health Organization

Source: TEST FEED1

Desert-like behaviors coming to world's wet regions

Climate change is making historically wet and temperate areas behave more like deserts, a new study has found.

By the end of the century, the researchers project that an additional global area about twice the size of the United States will experience soil temperatures and moisture levels equivalent to today’s arid regions. 

A better understanding of these processes will be key to helping societies in these transitioning ecosystems adapt, according to the study, published on Monday in the journal Nature.

That means delving into a blind spot in current climate projections, co-author Heather Throop of Arizona State University said in a statement.

Something that “our models can’t take into account is: what if the rules by which the system works change?” Throop asked.

That’s an increasingly urgent question. Over the next century, such changes will come to wide areas, her team found. Desert-like conditions — high soil temperatures and minimal soil moisture — will come to define a vast area of currently wet and temperate areas, the team from Arizona State University and Israel’s Hebrew University found. 

These ecosystems are changing in long-term ways in response to a world where heat and drought are rapidly becoming more extreme. The two hottest years on record were 2016 and 2020, and nineteen of the hottest years on record have occurred since 2000, according to NASA. Extreme droughts are also expected to increase in size, area and frequency, the Nature study found.

Most hot spots for these conditions are in the North American boreal forest and the tropical rainforest of Southeast Asia, South America and Equatorial Africa — whose humid biospheres harvest repositories both of biodiversity and, therefore, carbon.

Talk about climate change often refers to a change in weather conditions, like a greater incidence of drought or hurricanes or fires. 

However, the new research goes beyond this, looking at how ecosystems function over the long term — how adaptations help life survive as conditions of relative abundance change to conditions of hardship and scarcity. 

In a humid forest, for example, ecosystems depend on cool temperatures and plentiful water. The canopy and the soil are constantly competing for moisture; trees are adapted to low levels of rain and a rich layer of plants, insects and microbes that break down detritus and the dead bodies of plants and animals.

In dryland environments, by contrast — deserts, prairies, steppes, dry forest and savannah — the punishing sun and wind drives a world of scarce resources and boom and bust ecology, the scientists found. 

With rain coming in rare pulses, and a landscape that heat and dry air have baked into water-repelling clays, life has to adapt to conditions of scarcity, broken by occasional periods of dangerous abundance.

In these environments, the sun and wind, not insects and microbes, break down organic waste. With less rain, plants and leaf litter make use of dew and ambient moisture in the air. Air moving beneath an oak canopy cools the land, not the evaporation from water off of evergreen leaves. Deep rooted plants secure water and nutrients within the soil.  

In one subtle but important transition, as landscapes become too hot and dry for grasses and shrubs to survive, the foundation of the ecosystem shifts from plants to thin “crusts” of bacteria and lichens — which work carbon and nutrients into the soil. 

These ecosystem dynamics have been traditionally neglected in favor of the rules that govern the temperate regions where most people live — and where, historically, most of the world’s resource universities have been.

The Nature study suggests that neglect is no longer sustainable. “These new insights can contribute to advancing our adaptive capacity to withstand climate extremes and lessen their impacts on nature and people,” Throop said.  

Source: TEST FEED1

Ghislaine Maxwell moved to low-security prison in Florida

Ghislaine Maxwell has reportedly been moved to a low-security federal prison in Florida amid her 20-year sentence for her part in Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse and trafficking of underage girls.

Maxwell was found guilty of grooming young girls for Epstein to abuse, enticing the victims to travel across state lines and participate in sex acts. Epstein died in prison before he could go to trial, but Maxwell was sentenced in June and has reportedly been transferred to Tallahassee FCI, a low-security correctional institution and detention center, according to CNN and Bloomberg.

The Hill has reached out to the Federal Bureau of Prisons for comment.

Maxwell worked with financier Epstein over a 10-year period, from 1994 to 2004, during which she facilitated the underage girls’ abuse by making them comfortable and assuring them that she approved of Epstein’s behavior, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Both Maxwell and Epstein knew that their victims were underage, many as young as 14, when the abuse began.

According to the DOJ, she “attempted to befriend certain victims by asking them about their lives, their schools, and their families, and taking them to the movies or on shopping trips” before escalating her behavior, which the reportedly included discussing sexual topics and undressing in front of the victims. Epstein would then sexually abuse the victims, and Maxwell would sometimes participate.

Prosecutors pushed for a sentence of as many as 50 years, while Maxwell’s defense had argued for five.

Source: TEST FEED1

Political violence and the future of democracy: Take a look in the mirror, America

You’re not going to like what you see. 

Our research group just completed a nationwide survey measuring support for — and willingness to engage in — violence to advance political objectives. Initial results, which have not yet undergone peer review, were reported Tuesday. We were motivated by recent trends, detailed in the report, that include an unprecedented increase in fatal violence, an equally unprecedented increase in firearm purchasingwidespread acceptance of delusional beliefs about American society, and an increasing willingness to resort to violence for political purposes. 

Here’s some of what we learned from more than 8,600 respondents. More than 40 percent of Americans agree (19 percent strongly or very strongly) that “having a strong leader for America is more important than having a democracy.” More than 40 percent agree (16 percent strongly or very strongly) that “in America, native-born white people are being replaced by immigrants.” Half (50 percent) agree (27 percent strongly or very strongly) that “discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against Blacks and other minorities.” 

Delusion remains widespread. Nearly a quarter (23 percent) of Americans believe that the country is led “by a group of Satan-worshipping pedophiles who run a global child sex trafficking operation.” One-third (32 percent) agree (18 percent strongly or very strongly) that “the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump, and Joe Biden is an illegitimate president.” 

Perhaps the most concerning findings pertain to political violence (defined in the survey as “physical force strong enough that it could cause pain or injury to a person” in order to “advance an important political objective that you support”). One in five (22 percent) thought that political violence was at least sometimes justified “in general.” A far higher 78 percent thought violence was at least sometimes justified for one or more of 15 specific political objectives: “to return Donald Trump to the presidency this year” (12 percent), “to stop people who do not share my beliefs from voting” (7 percent), “to preserve an American way of life based on Western European traditions” (24 percent), among others. 

We asked respondents who endorsed political violence with a specific objective about their personal willingness to engage in that violence. Ten percent were at least somewhat willing “to threaten or intimidate a person” and 7 percent “to kill a person.” We asked about violence against specific types of people, because of who those people are. Nine percent were willing to use violence against “an elected federal or state government official,” 6 percent against “an election worker, such as a poll worker or vote counter” or “a person who does not share your race or ethnicity.” 

Finally, we asked everyone about the possibility that they might use a firearm in the future to advance a political objective. Nearly one in five (19 percent) considered it at least somewhat likely that “I will be armed with a gun” in such a situation, 10 percent that “I will carry a gun openly, so that people know I am armed, and 4 percent that “I will shoot someone.” 

What does all this portend? Our respondents have a possible answer. Half (50 percent) agree, though just 14 percent strongly or very strongly, that “in the next few years, there will be civil war in the United States.” 

Experts are very concerned about such possibilities

This is a grim image of our present and future, but it leaves room for hope. The majority of respondents rejected political violence altogether, generally (79 percent) or in support of any one of those 15 specific objectives (with two exceptions: 45 percent said “never justified” to violence to reinforce the police; 42 percent said “never justified” to violence to stop police violence). Those who endorsed violence in the abstract or were willing to engage in it most frequently gave tepid “somewhat/sometimes” responses, and most were unwilling to resort to violence themselves. 

The challenge now for the nation’s large “never” majorities is to recognize the threat posed by the relatively small number who go beyond “somewhat/sometimes” support — and respond adequately to that challenge. 

What to do? One immediate step is to understand all this better; our group will be reporting on factors potentially associated with political violence in this survey: political and social beliefs and behaviors, a prior history of or general support for violence, social media use, firearm ownership, and others. 

Experts such as Rachel Kleinfeld and Barbara Walter provide detailed recommendations for action. First is for elected officials and other thought leaders to stop espousing violence, recognizing that their rhetoric induces violence. Our deeper understanding of how close the United States came to a violent seizure of power on Jan. 6 should provide a teachable moment. Consider: What would have happened if Donald Trump had had his way in the SUV that day and had led the armed mob that coursed through the Capitol chanting, “Hang Mike Pence”? 

Professor Walter notes that “violence often springs from a sense of injustice, inequality, and insecurity.” Creating a society that manifests justice, equality and security will not be easy — a strong case can be made that we are headed rapidly in the wrong direction on all three counts — but it is essential.  

Both Kleinfeld and Walter argue that making elections more credible and reforming the electoral process are obvious steps. Other experts include reforming policing to build fairness and accountability and greatly improving the quality and fairness of public services. Promising evidence supports efforts to “inoculate” against recruitment to extreme ideology and redirecting those considering extremism to more productive responses to their grievances. 

There is much to love about the United States, its ideals, and our honest, inclusive efforts to attain them. That country is worth fighting for. I don’t mean with guns; one fights for that United States by renouncing violence, addressing its causes, saying something if one sees something, and making common cause with people who think about things differently.  

Midterm elections are less than four months away. What do you think will happen if we stay our current course, and armed voter suppression encounters armed voter support? There is no time to waste. 

Dr. Garen J. Wintemute, MD, MPH, is the Baker-Teret Chair in Violence Prevention and Distinguished Professor of Emergency Medicine at the University of California, Davis. He is a practicing emergency physician and director of the California Firearm Violence Research Center and the Violence Prevention Research Program, both at UC Davis. 

Source: TEST FEED1