In 2024, the political landscape in the United States has witnessed alarming spikes in political violence, with incidents including two assassination attempts targeting President Donald Trump.
The Bridging Divides Initiative, a project by Princeton University, documented over 600 threats and acts of harassment against local officials, marking a staggering 74% increase from 2022.
University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape highlighted the troubling normalization of violence within American politics, stating, “In under a decade, violence has become a shockingly regular feature of American political life.”
Pape suggested that while predicting future political trends can be complex and uncertain, the trajectory indicates a challenging road ahead for the United States.
Historically, the United States has not been immune to political violence.
Kevin Boyle, a historian at Northwestern University, pointed out that over a third of the presidents in the 20th century faced assassination attempts, with two, namely Abraham Lincoln and William McKinley, being killed.
Activists, particularly during the tense civil rights era, also experienced lethal violence.
Boyle noted the significant parallels between today’s turbulent political climate and the violence of the 1960s and 1970s when figures like President John F. Kennedy, civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., and presidential candidates Robert F. Kennedy and George Wallace were shot—only Wallace survived.
Many of the perpetrators from that era had mental health issues but were also influenced by the politically charged atmosphere of the time.
Kevin M. Schultz from the University of Illinois-Chicago noted that today, violence-related actions and rhetoric that once seemed taboo have found acceptance in some circles.
Case in point, Luigi Mangione, who is charged with the December killing of United HealthCare executive Brian Thompson, has been dubbed a “folk hero” by some, and a musical about him is experiencing sell-out crowds.
Simultaneously, acts of political violence are increasingly visible at demonstrations and protests, where the flags of terrorist organizations have become commonplace.
Today’s environment is marked by intense political polarization, which only heightens the potential for violence.
Boyle remarked that individuals are more likely to see their political opponents as “enemies of the nation,” facilitating a mindset supportive of violence.
This hostility is fueled by a myriad of factors, most notably the rise of social media, which has intensified the heated political discourse prevalent in talk radio and cable news over the past two decades.
Boyle explained how social media allows extreme rhetoric to reach broad audiences, while algorithms often promote divisive voices, compelling politicians to adopt more radical stances that do not reflect the views of the average voter.
Interestingly, American voters are not as ideologically polarized as the rhetoric suggests.
According to Rachel Kleinfeld, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, many partisans misjudge each other’s views, believing there is less common ground than actually exists.
This perception gap is particularly pronounced among progressive activists and extreme conservatives.
Comparing today’s political violence to that of the 1960s and 1970s, Boyle noted key changes; in that earlier era, mainstream politicians largely eschewed violent rhetoric, a stark contrast to the current environment.
Another significant factor contributing to the rise of political violence today is the easy access to firearms.
According to the Gun Violence Archive, on September 10 of this year, among a dozen people killed by gun violence was the influential conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
In 2023, nearly 47,000 individuals lost their lives to gun-related incidents, with approximately 38% of those being classified as homicides.
Boyle remarked, “It’s a terrible thing to hate your political opponents, but the ready availability of guns makes it easier for people to act on their hatred.”
Additionally, he pointed out that the systematic underfunding of mental health care allows individuals who pose a threat to remain unchecked.
In the wake of Kirk’s assassination, President Donald Trump and other conservatives were quick to blame the left for contributing to political violence.
Trump remarked, “For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals.
This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now.”
Elon Musk, a tech entrepreneur, echoed these sentiments, labeling the Left as “the party of murder” in a post on social media platform X.
However, violence has impacted both ends of the political spectrum.
In addition to the assassination of Kirk and attempts on Trump’s life, Republican figures faced violence during a mass shooting at a congressional baseball practice in 2017, while Democrats suffered attacks such as the 2011 shooting of then-Representative Gabby Giffords and the 2022 attack on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband.
The January 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. Capitol by supporters of Trump, who falsely claimed Democratic interference in the 2020 election, served as a stark reminder of the potential for political violence.
In the aftermath, many of those charged in the Capitol attack received pardons or sentence commutations from Trump after he regained the presidency.
According to a Reuters analysis, there were roughly 200 additional instances of political violence recorded since January 6, 2021.
Kleinfeld asserted that the rise in political violence creates a ripple effect impacting all political affiliations.
She warned that justifying violence from one’s party only fuels further violent acts from the opposing side.
As the political atmosphere continues to spiral, the urgency for intervention and discourse grows, emphasizing the critical need for restored civility in American politics.
image source from：pbs
