The Right to Rebel and the Insurrection at the Capitol: What Causes Support for the Events of January 6th

Undergraduate Research Journal Undergraduate Research Journal

Volume 26 Article 2

2022

The Right to Rebel and the Insurrection at the Capitol: What The Right to Rebel and the Insurrection at the Capitol: What

Causes Support for the Events of January 6th Causes Support for the Events of January 6th

Tanner Butler

Follow this and additional works at: https://openspaces.unk.edu/undergraduate-research-journal

Part of the American Politics Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Butler, Tanner (2022) "The Right to Rebel and the Insurrection at the Capitol: What Causes Support for the

Events of January 6th,"

Undergraduate Research Journal

: Vol. 26, Article 2.

Available at: https://openspaces.unk.edu/undergraduate-research-journal/vol26/iss1/2

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the O9ce of Undergraduate Research & Creative Activity

at OpenSPACES@UNK: Scholarship, Preservation, and Creative Endeavors. It has been accepted for inclusion in

Undergraduate Research Journal by an authorized editor of OpenSPACES@UNK: Scholarship, Preservation, and

Creative Endeavors. For more information, please contact [email protected].

THE RIGHT TO REBEL AND THE INSURRECTION AT THE CAPITOL:

WHAT CAUSES SUPPORT FOR THE EVENTS OF JANUARY 6

TANNER BUTLER

MENTOR: Dr. Satoshi Machida, Department of Political Science

ABSTRACT

On January 6th, there was a riot at the Capitol of the United States where protestors

attempted to overturn the 2020 Presidential Election. While attempting this, the protestors took

over the halls of Congress. This study will be looking at what is causing people to support this

political violence. The focus will be to see if people's beliefs that the protestors were within the

right to rebel that John Locke lays out in his social contract theory are important for explaining the

support for the riot. Survey data provided the basis for statistical analysis that demonstrated a

strong connection between belief in the right to rebel and support for the riot. Knowing this, we

have a better understanding of why people support political violence. Along with the importance

of the normative justification of the right to rebel. The idea that there will be a connection between

people supporting political violence and believing the perpetrators are within the right to rebel

could be applied to other acts of political violence both in the United States and abroad.

INTRODUCTION

On January 6th, the world was shocked as a riotous mob of protestors illegally entered the

Capitol building of the United States of America. They did so to stop Congress from certifying the

electors in the 2020 Presidential Election and officially declaring President Biden the victor. The

results are not universally accepted, with around 31% of the population believing that President

Biden's illegitimately won (Leatherby et al., 2021; The Visual Journalism Team, 2021).

These acts are shocking, especially since they occurred at a symbol for democracy. The

question is then posed, why did this historic event occur? This study proposes that one of the key

factors for why people are supportive of this act of political violence is their belief that the rioters

were acting within the Lockean right to rebel.

This right to rebel has been a prominent idea in American though, giving it theoretical

significance. With the introduction into the American marketplace of ideas coming from the story

of the Founding Fathers overthrowing a tyrannical government and invoking this right in the

Declaration of Independence. With the mythos around this era in American history, the

justification has become romanticized, turning the idea of a right to rebel into a normative

justification for political violence in American Society. This was not the founders' original idea;

instead, they called upon the work of John Locke (Ladenburg, 2007; O’Toole, 2011; Tate, 2015;

Wishy, 1958). Scholars have noted that John Locke’s right to rebel has been a classic justification

of political violence (Gurr, 1970a), and others have suggested these ideas caused the events of

January 6

(Corbould & McDonnell, 2021; Hennessey-Finske, 2021). These works lack empirical

evidence for the connection between these beliefs and political violence, which this study fixes.

Butler: The Right to Rebel and the Insurrection at the Capitol

Published by OpenSPACES@UNK: Scholarship, Preservation, and Creative Endeavors, 2022

This connection is one that may be intuitive to many readers and is why scholars have

previously argued that these beliefs helped to shape the events of January 6

. This paper helps to

both empirically show that there is a connection and more importantly to help illustrate the strength

of the support. With a better understanding of the strength in this relationship, future researchers

will have a better understanding of how important the Lockean normative beliefs can be for the

authorization of political violence in the United States, rather than a more abstract discussion of

the role that these norms have played. This study allows for a better understanding of what Locke

means today and a glimpse at the importance of the norms surrounding his work.

In the first section, we will be connecting the right to rebel to the literature surrounding

political violence. After that, we will investigate Locke's ideas surrounding the right to rebel and

the normative impact of this right. Next, we will look at the methodology for the survey that we

used to obtain data for this study. We conducted empirical analysis and interpreted the results. We

see a strong connection between people's support for the riot and their belief that the rioters were

within their rights.

POLITICAL VIOLENCE

To properly understand the events on January 6th, we need to look at the concept of

Political Violence. Gurr defines political violence as “…all collective attacks within a political

regime, its actors -including competing political groups as well as incumbents or its policies. The

goal of this is the attempted use of force or the threat of force for political change” (Gurr, pg. 24b).

Gurr postulates that the root cause of political violence is Relative Deprivation, which " ... is

defined as actor’s perception of discrepancy between their value expectations and their value

capabilities.” (pg. 24b). The connection between relative deprivation and political violence is

causal but not directly related and instead is expressed through other variables (Finkel, Muller &

Opp, 1989; Gurr, 1970a; Gurr, 1970b; Muller, 1972; Muller, 1977). This indirect causality can be

seen both in theoretical models (Gurr, 1970b) and through empirical analysis (Gurr, 1970a; Muller,

1972; Muller, 1977). Since Gurr's original work, the theory has still been used, with the added

idea that it is most applicable when relative deprivation exists between groups (Buhaug, Cederman,

& Gleditsch, 2014; Cunningham, 2013; Dyrstad & Hillesund, 2020; Eisinger, 1973; Østby, 2013;

Van Zomeren, Spears, Fischer, & Leach, 2004). These works have mainly focused on ethnic

groups, but relative deprivation only requires that the groups perceive any gap between them as

closeable (Gurr, 1970b).

The results of the 2016 election connect to the theory in that it provides the source for the

deprivation. The sources of deprivation are classified into welfare, power, and interpersonal (Gurr,

1970b; Muller, 1972). The welfare category is considered the most salient (Cantril, 1958; Gurr,

1970b), and the results of the 2020 election can be seen as an assault on these values. There are

two types of welfare values economic and self-actualization (Gurr, P. 25). Economic deprivation

has been the primary focus of study, with there being a strong connection between economic

downturns and political violence (Buhaug, Cederman, & Gleditsch, 2014; Davies, 1968; Dyrstad

& Hillesund, 2020; Eisinger, 1973). With 44% of Americans believing that President Trump would

do a better job with jobs and the economy (Morning Consult & Politico, 2020). The other areas

people could have faced deprivation are in the value area, with the participation and security

subsections (Gurr, p.26b). These exist because the protestors believe that President Biden's victory

was illegitimate. These people would then say their security has been harmed since the government

Undergraduate Research Journal, Vol. 26 [2022], Art. 2

https://openspaces.unk.edu/undergraduate-research-journal/vol26/iss1/2

is corrupt, and they did not get to participate in the election since it was "stolen" (Leatherby et al.,

2021; The Visual Journalism Team, 2021). Past research shows that there is a direct connection

between the illegitimacy of a regime or electoral unfairness and aggressive political actions,

including political violence (Collier, 2004; Dyrstad & Hillesund, 2020; Easton, 1975; Gurr, 1970a;

Gurr, 1970b; Muller, 1972; Muller, 1977; Muller & Jukam, 1983; Van Zomeren, et al., 2004).

Normally democracies do not have to worry about this since citizens vent their anger in elections,

but if the election is perceived as unfair and does not allow for venting of frustrations, democracies

deal with violence (Carrey, 2006; Dyrstad & Hillesund, 2020; Eisinger, 1973; Gurr, 1970b; Muller

& Jukam, 1983). All of this explains how the scholarship says there could be relative deprivation

with the results of the 2020 presidential election, and the perceived failure of the election. These

explanations don't need to be reasonable, but if they exist, that creates deprivation in this scenario.

Societal norms then factor into whether political violence will occur in situations with relative

deprivation.

RIGHT TO REBEL

For relative deprivation to ferment into actual violence, other conditions need to occur, one

of the key ones is normative beliefs (Gurr, 1970b, Muller, 1977). This occurs as actors use

normative arguments to justify their actions (Gurr, 1970a; O’Boyle, 2002). Violations of

inalienable rights have historically been a common justification for political violence (Gurr,

1970a). This work argues that the beliefs around the right to rebel act as the normative justification

that cause people to support the events on January 6th.

Now that we have looked at what causes political violence, we need to examine the

meaning of the right to rebel that John Locke delineated. The right to rebel evolves from Locke's

Social Contract theory presented in the Second Treatises on government (O’Toole, 2011; Tate,

1965; Wishy, 1958). Locke establishes that society, in a state of nature, can form a state by consent.

The purpose of these governments is to protect the natural rights of their citizens since the rights

cannot be protected in the anarchical state of nature. Since the government is formed by consent,

society may revoke this and return to a state of nature (Locke, 2015; O’Toole, 2001). Since society

under Locke's Social Contract Theory can exit the contract, there is an inherent right to rebel that

does not exist under other social contract theories (Ladenburg, 2007; O'Toole, 2001). Locke does

limit this right, arguing that it is only to be used as a last resort when the misery suffered is more

than the people would be under the state of nature (Locke, 2015). Locke specifically discusses

conditions that society can base the right to rebel on. These will be called the right to rebel due to

a tyrannical government and an improperly elected government.

The first right to rebel that we will discuss is the right to rebel against a tyrannical

government, which Locke describes as “…an absolute power over the lives, liberty, and estates of

the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for

quire contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original

liberty...” (pg. 191). Society would be wholly within its right to rebel if the government infringes

upon the peoples' natural rights (Locke, 2015; Honoré, 1988). Another justification that Locke

gives for the right to rebel is if the government is improperly elected. Locke phrases this as

“…When,…, the electors, or ways of election, are altered, without the consent, and contrary to the

common interest of the people…they are not the legislative appointed by the people” (pg. 189).

When this occurs, a state of war between society and the government occurs. This state of war is

the hallmark of when the right to rebel has been taken up (Locke, 2015). One specific way that

Butler: The Right to Rebel and the Insurrection at the Capitol

Published by OpenSPACES@UNK: Scholarship, Preservation, and Creative Endeavors, 2022

Locke notes that this can happen is when the executive “…openly pre-engages the electors, and

prescribes to their choice, such, whom he has, by solicitations, threats, promises, or otherwise, won

to his designs; and employs them to bring in such, who have promised before-hand what to vote,

and what to enact” (pg.192). The heart of what Locke is stating here is that society can invoke the

right to rebel when someone illegitimately won an election.

Locke does put constraints on when society can use the right to rebel under these

conditions, saying:

But if a long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way, make

the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under, and see

whither they are going; it is not to be wondered, that they should then rouze themselves

and endeavor to put into such hands which may secure to them the ends for which

government was at first erected; and without which, ancient names, and specious forms,

are so far from being better, that they are much worse, than the state of nature, or pure

anarchy; the inconveniences being all as great and as near, but the remedy farther off and

more difficult (pg. 193)

The goal of Locke is to ensure that every slight issue with government leads to rebellions but only

as a last option (Locke, 2015). The question is now when are these conditions met? Locke does

not give us an exact answer, only saying that “The people shall be judge…” (pg. 201). Since the

people are the ones deciding in all practical sense, it does not matter exactly. The exact intellectual

criterion is not as important as the beliefs that the people hold (Wishy, 1958).

All the theory behind the right to rebel is true only as with other rights if society accepts

the existence of the said right. The normative belief that the right to rebel exists occurs in the

United States due to the influence of the Declaration of Independence (Honoré, 1988). The specific

aspects of normative beliefs around the right to rebel that each country has affected how the right

is used (Honoré, 1988; Pines, 2008). Knowing this, we need to look at the specific beliefs in the

United States, which evolved from the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson based the

Declaration of Independence upon the works of Locke in his Second Treatise (Ladenburg, 2007;

O’Toole, 2011; Tate, 2015; Wishy, 1958). Jefferson was not the only scholar of Locke, but the

study of his theory was prolific throughout colonial America and lead to support for the American

Revolution. Cohan, 2005; O’Toole, 2011; Tate, 2015; Wishy, 1958). With the idolization of this

period of American History, the ideas survive today (Cohan, 2005; Corbould & McDonnell, 2021;

O’Toole, 2011). This normative justification has been used across American history, such as

during the Civil War, where Confederate leaders consistently referred to Locke's ideas and the

ideas of Locke and the Declaration of Independence (Durden, 1978). Other dissidents, such as

American communists, have used these same ideas (Wishy, 1958). Even today, the protestors on

the 6th used this normative justification (Corbould & McDonnell, 2021; Hennessey-Finske, 2021).

Corbould & McDonnell argue that this was a large part of the justification for the rioters but

provide little empirical evidence (2021). In the United States, we see that a majority, 51%, of

Americans believe that "if the elected officials do not protect America, people need to" (Jackson

& Silverstein, 2021). Polling also demonstrates the survival of the norm with 36% of Americans

agreeing with the statement, “the traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we

may have to use force to save it” and with 39% also agreeing with the statement “if elected officials

will not protect America, the people must do it themselves even if it requires taking violent actions”

Undergraduate Research Journal, Vol. 26 [2022], Art. 2

https://openspaces.unk.edu/undergraduate-research-journal/vol26/iss1/2

(Cox, 2021). These numbers show objectively measurable support across the United States for

political violence. All of this demonstrates Honoré’s point that there is a normative belief in the

right to rebel in the United States (1988) and that this view comes from John Locke’s views on the

right to rebel in the United States.

This study will contribute the literature by providing empirical evidence of how beliefs

about the right to connects to support for a specific instance of political violence. To accomplish

this, we hypothesize that belief that people are within their right to rebel is connected to their

support for the events of January 6th. Past researchers have shown a connection exists between

support for political violence and acts of political violence. The acts occur to a lesser extent but,

there is a connection that allows us to explain political violence (Carey, 2006; Dyrstad &

Hillesund, 2020; Kim, 1966; Gurr, 1970b; Muller, 1972). As a result, we can use this study to gain

a better understanding of the political violence that shocked the nation on January 6

METHOD

I used an online survey to test the connection between people’s support for the insurrection

and their beliefs that the rioters were within the right to rebel. The survey was created and

conducted on the Qualtrics survey platform. I obtained responses using Amazon Mechanical Turk.

As a result, a sample of the American population where n= 455 was achieved.

The first step to illustrate the connection between people's support for events on the 6th

insurrection and their beliefs that the rioters were within the right to rebel was to measure the

support for the riot. Measurement for support for the riot was done in two ways. The first is support,

and the second is that the protestors were generally within their rights. These are the dependent

variables for this study. To gauge both variables’ respondents were shown:

On January 6th, Congress met in a joint session to formalize the results of the 2020

presidential election. The importance of this joint session was due to President Donald

Trump, who lost the 2020 presidential election, claiming that there was fraud in the

election. He had called for Congress to use this formalization process to overturn the

results. To convince Congress to overturn the election, President Trump held a rally where

he again said that the election was stolen. After this rally President Trump's supporters

breached the Capitol while Congress was in session formalizing the results. The purpose

of these protestors/rioters was to overturn the 2020 presidential election in which they

believed that Donald Trump defeated Joe Biden.

After reading this, respondents were asked, “Do you support the events that occurred on January

6th?” to determine their support for the riot, the dependent variable. The available options were

“Very strongly support”, “Not so strongly support”, “Neutral”, “Not so strongly do not support”,

“Very strongly do not support”, “Don’t know”, and “Refuse to answer.”. These options were a

modified scale that Pew Research Center used (2018). The other way the dependent variable was

measured was by asking, "Do you view the events that occurred on January 6th as legitimate acts

by protestors that were acting within their rights?”. The available responses were “Definitely yes”,

“Probably yes”, “Might or might not”, “Probably not”, “Definitely not”, “Don’t know”, and

“Refuse to answer”. Responses were based on the available options on Qualtrics’s pre-written

responses.

Butler: The Right to Rebel and the Insurrection at the Capitol

Published by OpenSPACES@UNK: Scholarship, Preservation, and Creative Endeavors, 2022

To gauge the independent variable, beliefs that the rioters were within the right to rebel,

respondents were shown these three quotes:

Please read the following: According to John Locke's Social Contract Theory, humans are

born with certain natural rights, some of which are life, liberty, and property. To ensure

that these natural rights are to be as secure from tyranny as possible, society gives consent

to form a government. Since society is the one giving the power to govern, society can

revoke this consent at any time. According to Locke, there are only certain times when

society should revoke consent. When society revokes consent, they have triggered the right

to rebellion. The right to rebellion allows for society to abolish the government and

establish a new one.

After reading this summary of Locke's theory, they saw a specific justification Locke gives:

One of the conditions that allow for the right to rebellion to be triggered, according to

Locke, is when a government becomes tyrannical. A government becomes tyrannical when

it infringes upon the people's natural rights of life, liberty, and or property. Not every minor

infringement of these rights gives rise to the right to rebellion. The abuses of natural rights

need to be great mistakes by the government. A series of abuses to the natural rights of its

citizens is also something that can make a government be considered tyrannical. When

exactly are either of these to be enough for society to invoke the right to rebel? There is no

objective way to determine when for either of these conditions, so the people become the

judges.

Respondents then saw this second justification for the right to rebel according to Locke:

To pre-engage the electors, the official would have to do some shady stuff to secure their

votes. Included in this is bribery, threats, promising a job, promising a policy, or anything

else along these lines. The other primary way that officials are improperly elected is if the

rules of election are changed. These changes need to be without the consent of the people

and against their interests. If society judges that either of these were to occur, society may

invoke the right to rebellion.

After each of the justifications, respondents were asked, “Knowing this do you see the events of

January 6th protestors acting within their rights?” and had the same available responses as with

the scale based on Qualtrics responses. All dependent and independent variables had stronger

support corresponding to the high score.

Respondents also had demographic characteristics measured. Education was the first

demographic that was measured, with the ordinal responses being based on Qualtrics prewritten

responses. The variable was scored so higher levels of education correspond to the high score.

The next demographic variable is age, where the options were based upon the Qualtrics prewritten

responses. This again had high age corresponding to the high score. Ethnicity was another

demographic that was measured, with the available option being based on the work by Toor (2020).

The variable was scored as a dummy variable with respondents either being “White/Caucasian” or

not. The next demographic that was measured is gender. This was scored as a dummy variable

with female being the high score. The final measured demographic is the respondent's political

Undergraduate Research Journal, Vol. 26 [2022], Art. 2

https://openspaces.unk.edu/undergraduate-research-journal/vol26/iss1/2

party. A dummy variable was created, where being “Republican” is the high score. While coding

all of the variable response of “Don’t know” or “Refuse to answer” were removed.

RESULTS

In order to explore the connection between support of the events of January 6th and belief

in the right to rebel, the collected data is analyzed. The initial analysis begins with a bivariate

analysis using all variables. The results are presented in Table 1. Here we see that there is a

significant (p<0.0000) connection between respondents' support for the riot and their belief that

the rioters were within their right to rebel. The connection is also an extremely strong one, which

we see with the result of the Pearson's r test (r=0.77). The extremely strong correlation(r=0.78)

continues between respondents' support for the riot and their belief that the protestors were within

their right to rebel due to an improperly elected government. This same extremely strong

connection between support for the riot, as measured by a general belief that the protestors were

within their rights, and the right to rebel based on a tyrannical government and an improperly

elected government are also extremely strong with Pearson Correlation Coefficients of 0.83 and

0.80 respectively. From these results, we can see a strong, significant, and positive connection

between individuals' support for the riot and their belief that the rioters were within their rights to

rebel. Overall, this shows us that those who believe the rioters were within their right to rebel are

more likely to support the riot.

Table 1 Bivariate Correlation

Support

for Riot

Generally

Within Right

Right to Rebel

Due to

Tyrannical

Government

Right to Rebel

Due to

Improperly

Elected

Government

Generally Within Rights

0.8188***

Right to Rebel Due to

Tyrannical Government

0.7718***

0.8300***

Right to Rebel Due to

Improperly Elected

Government

0.7797***

0.8005***

0.8183***

Education

0.1607***

0.1582**

0.1573*

0.1564*

Age

0.0123

0.0007

0.0160

0.0296

Gender

-0.1762**

-0.1927**

-0.1576*

-0.1552

Republican

0.1657**

0.1474**

0.1405*

0.1807**

White

0.1115*

0.1202*

0.1177*

0.0775

Butler: The Right to Rebel and the Insurrection at the Capitol

Published by OpenSPACES@UNK: Scholarship, Preservation, and Creative Endeavors, 2022

Estimated by Stata 17 *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.0000

To see if a demographic characteristic is causing these extremely strong results, we need

to look at the results of multiple regression analysis. Table 2 displays the results of this multiple

regression analysis. To understand what the results mean, we need to discuss what each model

means. Model 1 demonstrates the extremely strong correlation (β=0.81) between respondents'

support of the riot and their belief that the rioters were within their right to rebel due to a tyrannical

government while controlling for demographics. We see that the most important and significant

(p<0.01) variable in the model is the key independent variable, the belief the rioters were within

the right to rebel due to a tyrannical government. We also see that demographics have minimal

effect, with only gender being significant (p<0.05). In Model 2, we see that there is an extremely

strong (β=0.84) and significant (p<0.01) connection between respondents' support for the riot and

their belief that the protestors were with their right to rebel due to an improperly elected

government. The demographic variables were also not important for this model, with only gender

being significant (p<0.05). Model 2 shows that the belief that the protestors were within their right

to rebel due to an improperly elected government is a major part of the support for the riot.

The other way that we measured support is by looking at the generalized belief that the

rioters were within their rights. Model 3 demonstrates the relationship between the generalized

belief that the protestors were within their rights and the belief that the protestors were within the

right to rebel due to a tyrannical government. We can see that the only important variable in this

model is the belief that the rioters were within their right to rebel due to a tyrannical government

that was strong (β=0.79), significant(p<0.01), and direct connection. This shows that the belief

that the protestors were within their right to rebel is a major part of respondents' belief that the

protestors were generally within their rights. In Model 4, we see the same pattern where the belief

that the rioters were within the right to rebel due to an improperly elected government is strongly

(β=0.78), significantly (p<0.01), and directly connected to the belief that the rioters were within

their rights as a general sense. The demographic in this model is again not considered to have much

effect showing that the belief that the rioters were within their right to rebel is the most important

variable.

Table 2 Multiple Regression Analysis

Independent Variables

Model 1

(Support for

Riot)

Model 2

(Support for

the Riot)

Model 3

(Generalized

Belief)

Model 4

(Generalized

Belief)

Right to Rebel Due to Tyrannical

Government

0.8117**

0.7914**

Right to Rebel Due to Improperly

Elected Government

0.8434**

0.7827**

Education

0.0811

0.0782

0.0491

0.0562

Age

-0.0111

-0.0180

-0.0066

0.0167

Gender

-0.2357*

-0.2339*

-0.1906*

-0.2027*

Undergraduate Research Journal, Vol. 26 [2022], Art. 2

https://openspaces.unk.edu/undergraduate-research-journal/vol26/iss1/2

Republican

-0.2612

0.1746

0.1121

0.0423

White

0.1507

0.1219

0.1123

0.2343**

Cons

0.2888

-0.1502

0.1295

0.1300

Adjusted R

0.5960

0.6089

0.6910

0.6474

425

428

427

429

Estimated by Stata 17 *p<0.05, **p<0.01

We can see the connection with the bivariate correlation, so we need to look at the usage

of multiple regression. Table 2 displays the results of the multiple regression analysis. To

understand the results, we need to discuss what each model means. Model 1 is between people's

support for the riot, belief that the rioters were within their right to rebel due to a tyrannical

government, and demographics. Here we can see that there is a strong (β=0.81) and

significant(p<0.01) connection between support for the riot and the belief that the rioters were

within the right to rebel due to a tyrannical government. In Model 1, we see that the demographics

have minimal effect or were not significant. Model 1 demonstrates that people's belief that the

rioters were within their right to rebel due to a tyrannical government is an important part of why

people support the riot. In Model 2, we see that there is a strong (β=0.84), significant (p<0.01),

and direct connection between people's support for the riot and the belief that the protestors were

with their right to rebel due to an improperly elected government. The demographic variables were

also not important for this model. Model 2 shows that the belief that the protestors were within

their right to rebel due to an improperly elected government is a major part of the support for the

riot.

The other way that we measured support is by looking at the generalized belief that the

rioters were within their rights. Model 3 demonstrates the relationship between the generalized

belief that the protestors were within their rights and the belief that the protestors were within the

right to rebel due to a tyrannical government. We can see that the only important variable in this

model is the belief that the rioters were within their right to rebel due to a tyrannical government

that was extremely strong (β=0.79) and significant(p<0.01). This model shows that the belief that

the protestors were within their right to rebel is a major part of respondents' belief that the

protestors were generally within their rights. In Model 4, we see the same pattern where the belief

that the rioters were within the right to rebel due to an improperly elected government is extremely

strongly (β=0.78) and significantly (p<0.01) connected to the belief that the rioters were within

their rights as a general sense. The demographic in this model has a relatively weak effect on the

dependent variable so, we do not look into them deeply.

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION

Let us start discussing the meaning of the results by looking at the connection between

people's support for the riot and their belief that the rioters were within the right to rebel due to a

tyrannical government. The exact results are in Tables 1 and 2 with Model 1. Looking at the results,

we see a strong connection between support for the riot and the belief that the protestors were

Butler: The Right to Rebel and the Insurrection at the Capitol

Published by OpenSPACES@UNK: Scholarship, Preservation, and Creative Endeavors, 2022

within their right to rebel. Locke framed this right to rebel as resulting from a government

infringing upon the natural rights of its citizens. Locke did not intend society to invoke the right

but for great issues or a series of mistakes that make the relationship untenable (Locke, 2015).

These ideas are a normative part of society from the Declaration of Independence, which lays out

the series of abuses that lead to the American Revolution (Jefferson et al., 1776). These ideas are

around the part of the normative justification of violence that surrounds the right to rebel. This

study's strong results show that the ideas of the right to rebel due to a tyrannical government are

an important normative justification for political violence in the United States. The study most

directly aides the understanding of the events that occurred on January 6

, but also allows for a

deeper glimpse into political violence in the United States. As Gurr describes, the normative

justification is only part of the puzzle for when political violence is to occur, they simply act to

facilitate the actions after relative deprivation has occurred (1970b). As this piece has previously

discussed, the Lockean ideas have become part of American discourse and therefore can be used

to help bring the relative deprivation to political violence, but the use of this language is not a

sufficient condition to create political violence.

While respondents may not have strictly adhered to what Locke meant, the basic ideas are

still there. That is what is important for this relationship. It is not just anger and relative deprivation

surrounding the 2020 Presidential election causing support. Since respondents say that protestors

are reaching the point that natural rights are under threat. So, we can see there is something deeper

going on. The reason why respondents view the results as affecting their natural rights is unknown

and needs further study. Without this, we can tell the underlying cause of the relative deprivation

is salient to respondents; since they indicated it was bad enough that the protestors were within

their right to overthrow the government. This only shows how important understanding these

issues are. Even without knowing the ultimate cause, we can still draw conclusions on the

importance of these norms. We see that the right to rebel due to a tyrannical government is an

important way to explain how some of the relative deprivation resultant from the 2020 Presidential

election turned into a historical tragedy. We also can see just how important Locke's ideas are

today, with them being a major explanatory variable for why people are supportive of political

violence that amounts to an attempted coup. The right to rebel based on a tyrannical government

is an important way to look at political violence in the future in the United States.

We know a significant and strong connection exists between support for the riot and the

belief that the protestors were within the right to rebel due to an improperly elected government.

So, what does this all mean? To fully understand, we need to look at the events that precipitated

the storming of the Capitol. The major event was a rally that then-President Donald Trump hosted

where he falsely claimed that the election was stolen. His supporters believed this to be true.

Supporters went from this rally to the Capitol, which they breached. While inside, they chanted

"Stop the Steal" (Leatherby et al., 2021). So, it is clear there is a relationship between beliefs

around the validity of the 2020 Presidential and this act of political violence. Another way that

stealing could be said is that President Biden was improperly elected. This is a possible justification

for the right to rebel, as has been discussed earlier. An interesting aspect of these results is that the

connection is between the right to rebel due to an improperly elected government, not just the

beliefs of the validity of the 2020 election. This shows just how flawed people see the election, it

is so illegitimate that people would be within their right to dissolve the United States government.

Showing just how important the beliefs around the election are to those who support the riot. The

deep connection to the normative justification is also interesting here. The justifications in the

Undergraduate Research Journal, Vol. 26 [2022], Art. 2

https://openspaces.unk.edu/undergraduate-research-journal/vol26/iss1/2

Declaration of Independence focused on the right to rebel due to a tyrannical government. But the

overarching principles are still applicable to other justifications that Locke gives. Coming from

the core idea that government comes from the consent of the people. An idea that the Declaration

of Independence inputted into American society. So even without specific justifications in the

document, the norms created are still important for American society. As can be seen with how

closely tied the normative justification that the protestors were within the right to rebel due to an

improperly elected government is to support the riot. Why this support matters for the role that the

norm plays in society is that the people are the judges for what is sufficient to be able to evoke the

right to rebel (Locke, pg. 201). The fact that the people here have acted as the judge in this instance,

tells us a lot about the view of the right. The empirical evidence allowed us to see that there was

extremely strong support, allows us to understand just how important the norms are in why people

are supportive of violence. As a result, we can see the broadness of the normative justification for

political violence that the right to rebel is in American society.

Now let us look at the strong connection between the belief that the protestors were within

their right to rebel due to a tyrannical government and people’s generalized belief that the

protestors were within their rights. This result makes intuitive sense that people believing that the

protestors are within their rights in a general sense and their belief that they are within their right

to rebel would have a strong connection. The generalized belief that the protestors were within

their rights is another way to measure respondent's support. So, the same conclusions are drawn

here. We find that the idea of the right to rebel is an important normative justification for political

violence in the United States. The other part is that this gives us a glance at how deeply tied with

other normative justifications the right to rebel is. The connection becomes clear when we look at

how close the correlation is. The idea of the right to rebel is a strong predictor for the generalized

belief that the protestors are within their rights. This is not perfect, showing that there is more to it

than why people believe the protestors are within their rights. This is due to other justifications

that would cause people to believe the protestors were within their rights. It is unknown what these

may be, which would be subject to future research.

Finally, we need to look at the connection between respondent's beliefs that the protestors

were within their right to rebel due to an improperly elected government and their belief that the

protestors were generally within their rights. Everything has been discussed in more depth already

here. So, the basic conclusion from this connection is as follows. The breadth of the normative

justification for the right to rebel comes from the core of Locke's ideas. We again see that the

grievances around the legitimacy of the 2020 Presidential election are very important, as seen with

the connection to the right to rebel due to an improperly elected government. The normative

justifications people hold for the political violence at this event are more than are measured in this

study. That is there is more than the belief that the protestors are within the right to rebel due to a

tyrannical government. What these are again is unknown, and future research would be required

to find out.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank Dr. Machida for all his help and mentorship during this project. I

would also like to thank Dr. Rowling and Ms. Brown for all they did with the SSRP program. I

would also like to thank all the other participants and mentors in the SSRP program, they helped

Butler: The Right to Rebel and the Insurrection at the Capitol

Published by OpenSPACES@UNK: Scholarship, Preservation, and Creative Endeavors, 2022

me to expand my thoughts and their comments and questions improved the paper. Finally, I would

like to thank the reviewers of this paper.

Undergraduate Research Journal, Vol. 26 [2022], Art. 2

https://openspaces.unk.edu/undergraduate-research-journal/vol26/iss1/2

REFERENCES

“2018 PEW RESEARCH CENTER’S AMERICAN TRENDS PANEL WAVE 31 JANUARY

FINAL TOPLINE January 29 – February 13, 2018.” Pew Research Center, Washington,

D.C. (February 13, 2018) https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/wp-

content/uploads/sites/4/2018/04/Democracy-topline-for-release.pdf

(1776) Thomas Jefferson, et al, July 4, Copy of Declaration of Independence. -07-04.

[Manuscript/Mixed Material] Retrieved from the Library of Congress,

https://www.loc.gov/item/mtjbib000159/.

Buhaug, H., Cederman, L. E., & Gleditsch, K. S. (2014). Square pegs in round holes:

Inequalities, grievances, and civil war. International Studies Quarterly, 58(2), 418-431.

Cantril, H. (1958). The politics of despair.

Carey, S. C. (2006). The dynamic relationship between protest and repression. Political

Research Quarterly, 59(1), 1-11.

Cohan, J. A. (2005). Necessity, political violence and terrorism. Stetson L. Rev., 35, 903.

Collier, P., & Hoeffler, A. (2004). Greed and grievance in civil war. Oxford economic papers,

56(4), 563-595.

Corbould, C., & McDonnell, M. (2021, July 7). Why the alt-right believes another American

revolution is coming. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/why-the-alt-right-

believes-another-american-revolution-is-coming-153093.

Cox, D. A. (2021, June 3). After the ballots are Counted: Conspiracies, political violence, and

American exceptionalism. The Survey Center on American Life.

https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/after-the-ballots-are-counted-

conspiracies-political-violence-and-american-exceptionalism/.

Cunningham, K. G. (2013). Understanding strategic choice: The determinants of civil war and

nonviolent campaign in self-determination disputes. Journal of Peace Research, 50(3),

291-304.

Davies, J. C. (1968). Towards a Theory of Revolution [w:] HL Ross. Perspectives on the Social

Order.

Della Porta, D. (2008). Research on social movements and political violence. Qualitative

sociology, 31(3), 221-230.

Durden, R. F. (1978). The American Revolution as Seen by Southerners in 1861. Louisiana

History: The Journal of the Louisiana Historical Association, 19(1), 33-42.

Dyrstad, K., & Hillesund, S. (2020). Explaining support for political violence: grievance and

perceived opportunity. Journal of conflict resolution, 64(9), 1724-1753.

Easton, D. (1975). A re-assessment of the concept of political support. British journal of

political science, 5(4), 435-457.

Eisinger, P. K. (1973). The conditions of protest behavior in American cities. American political

science review, 67(1), 11-28.

Butler: The Right to Rebel and the Insurrection at the Capitol

Published by OpenSPACES@UNK: Scholarship, Preservation, and Creative Endeavors, 2022

Finkel, S. E., Muller, E. N., & Opp, K. D. (1989). Personal influence, collective rationality, and

mass political action. American Political Science Review, 83(3), 885-903.

Gurr, T. R. (1970a). Sources of rebellion in Western societies: Some quantitative evidence. The

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 391(1), 128-144.

Gurr, T. R. (1970b). Why men rebel. Princeton University Press.

Hennessey-Finske, M. (2021, January 7). 'Second revolution begins': Armed right-wing groups

CELEBRATE Capitol attack. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/world-

nation/story/2021-01-06/the-second-revolution-begins-today-armed-right-wing-groups-

celebrate-attack-on-capitol.

Honoré, T. (1988). The right to rebel. Oxford J. Legal Stud., 8, 34.

Jackson, C., & Silverstein, K. (2021, January 6). PUBLIC POLL FINDINGS AND

METHODOLOGY . IPSOS.

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2021-

01/topline_attempted_coup_poll_010621.pdf.

Locke, J. (2005). Book II Of Civil Government . In Two treatises of government ; And, a letter

Concerning toleration (pp. 100–202). essay, Digireads.com Pub.

Morning Consult, & Politico. (2020, October). National Tracking Poll 2010102 - politico.

Retrieved February 4, 2022, from https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-48f0-d7aa-

af77-5efc0b3b0000

Muller, E. N. (1970). Correlates and consequences of beliefs in the legitimacy of regime

structures. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 392-412.

Muller, E. N. (1972). A test of a partial theory of potential for political violence. American

Political Science Review, 66(3), 928-959.

Muller, E. N. (1977). Mass politics: Focus on participation. American Behavioral Scientist,

21(1), 63-86.

Muller, E. N., & Jukam, T. O. (1983). Discontent and aggressive political participation. British

Journal of Political Science, 13(2), 159-179.

Ladenburg, T. (2007). Chapter 12: Hobes, Locke and Jefferson on Revolution and the State of

Nature . Digital History.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/teachers/lesson_plans/pdfs/unit1_12.pdf.

Leatherby, L., Ray, A., Singhvi, A., Triebert, C., Watkins, D., & Willis, H. (2021, January 12).

How a presidential rally turned into a capitol rampage. The New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/12/us/capitol-mob-timeline.html.

O'Boyle, G. (2002). Theories of justification and political violence: Examples from four groups.

Terrorism and Political Violence, 14(2), 23-46.

O'Toole, J. W. (2011). The Right of Revolution: An Analysis of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes'

Social Contract Theories (Doctoral dissertation, Boston College. College of Arts and

Sciences).

Undergraduate Research Journal, Vol. 26 [2022], Art. 2

https://openspaces.unk.edu/undergraduate-research-journal/vol26/iss1/2

Østby, G. (2013). Inequality and political violence: A review of the literature. International Area

Studies Review, 16(2), 206-231.

Pines, Y. (2008). To Rebel is Justified? The Image of Zhouxin and the Legitimacy of Rebellion

in the Chinese Political Tradition. Oriens Extremus, 47, 1-24.

Tate, T. W. (1965). The Social Contract in America, 1774-1787: Revolutionary Theory as a

Conservative Instrument. The William and Mary Quarterly: A Magazine of Early

American History, 376-391.

The Visual Journalism Team. (2021, January 7). Capitol riots: A visual guide to the storming of

Congress. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55575260.

Toor, M. (2020, December 11). Demographic survey questions that yield valuable insights.

Qualtrics. https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/demographic-survey-questions/.

Van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., Fischer, A. H., & Leach, C. W. (2004). Put your money where

your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and

group efficacy. Journal of personality and social psychology, 87(5), 649.

Wishy, B. (1958). John Locke and the Spirit of '76. Political Science Quarterly, 73(3), 413-425.

Butler: The Right to Rebel and the Insurrection at the Capitol

Published by OpenSPACES@UNK: Scholarship, Preservation, and Creative Endeavors, 2022