Don’t let violent extremism lay a permanent claim to public space and services

By most accounts, DC and federal authorities responded with the gravity needed to stop further pre-inauguration violence, following the effort to overthrow our national democratic institutions on Jan. 6. Authorities closed down access to public space; to amenities; to Metro bus and rail stations; and to public right of way, and flooded the town with security personnel.

DC residents got the message: stay away from parts of our city for now, both to protect ourselves and to help defuse further violence.

But what version of Washington, DC will be freely accessible next week; next month; next year? The problem of political violence will not go away that quickly. What can be done before it gets to the point of guns and zip ties outside our seats of government to stop it?

A time and a place

There’s no question that the priority of the moment is rightly placed on protecting our democratic institutions and preventing further violence and trauma. DC residents, businesses and other interests have made room for the priorities of public safety that housing our seat of national government entails for over 200 years. Our Mayor is one of the most visible executives showing leadership during this trying time.

But in the longer term, waiting until violence has occurred displaces attention from the broader societal changes needed to defuse it sustainably.

The fundamental problem we must address is not “extremist violence”; it’s “violent extremism.” In other words, at the point when violence occurs and can be stopped by armed enforcement, it’s a symptom of unchecked extremist tendencies in society that, if quelled at one moment, can just as easily erupt at another place and time. It would be good in the coming months to see authorities working just as hard to slow this extremist tide in the long term as they are to stop it in the hour that people’s lives are in danger.

Experts say that addressing such violence requires more deep and detailed approaches that start at the beginning, not the end, of the causal pathway. Both homegrown and international extremist tendencies are deeply-held, complex social phenomena that, like the Hydra, are rarely stymied by one or a few defeats. The UN calls for policy responses that recognize social, economic, educational and environmental determinants, along with political rhetoric.

How violent extremism impacts access to public space and equity

A focus on removing access to public space and services may work for stemming violence in the short term. (Or not; the Capitol was already a space without free public access when it was overrun.) But the longer the restrictions are kept up, the harder these spaces might be to recover, and the heavier burden they place on the marginalized.

For example, if it’s suddenly not legal to be in public spaces where it used to be legal, then law enforcement officers’ discretion could make the difference between a gentle warning to transgressors and asking to see ID; if the person doesn’t have ID (such as a person experiencing homelessness), that can lead to further negative interactions and trauma.

Most of us need transportation and public space, but we don’t all need them equally. People on lower incomes, of color, with disabilities, or in essential jobs will suffer disproportionately from limiting access. Every closed Metro station and every closed street means those who need them to get somewhere find it harder to do so. That may be a necessity right now; but we may live with these types of threats for years to come.

In addition to closures, authorities have restricted activities that are harmless by nature or even represent use-as-intended, like simply being on the National Mall, but constitute a significant management problem for law enforcement. That problem is real. It’s reasonable for officials responsible for public safety to want to look at a smaller haystack with fewer variables to manage and bystanders to protect.

But terrorism is notoriously sticky once it’s sidled into enough people’s minds as a legitimate way to address grievances. The threat may be dispersed and less of a temptation than this especially sensitive moment and place that many of us call home, but so will be the resources that authorities will devote to any particular risk.

In the meantime, every place where it’s no longer a public right to walk or exist puts more people of color and other marginalized groups (anyone who doesn’t fit a law enforcement view of who is supposed to be somewhere or how they’re supposed to act) at risk of interactions with law enforcement that could quickly go south.

Recovery - both economic and social - needs room to breathe

While public attention is currently focused on the domestic terrorism crisis, we still have the COVID-19 crisis to recover from.

To make the current restrictions on access and movement semi-permanent or permanent would threaten the recovery cities are reaching toward in the late (and eventually post) COVID-19 period. Recovery is about restoring jobs and economic activity, and also restoring society in a way that invites people of every stripe to move around, interact, learn, or experience something inspiring or enjoyable about life. These things are easy to dismiss in a time of national crisis, but as public goods they are absolutely essential to both growth and equity. And they require free and non-fearful access to public space.

Authorities are right to throw every drop of cold water at their disposal at the threat of further anti-democratic violence at this moment. Our survival as a republic depends on it. But even more energy and resources are needed to understand and implement real solutions to these issues beyond the inauguration, drawing on legislative, public health, communication, education, social welfare and other approaches, and not primarily the blunt and limited tools of enforcement and closures.