Political violence in the United States feels as though it has reached a crescendo in the last several months. In July of this year, there was an assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump during one of his political rallies. Just last week, another attempt was intercepted at one of his West Palm Beach golf clubs. Also last week, elections officials in 15 states, including Georgia, received suspicious packages meant to serve as a threat to these early voting states.
These attempts are situated against the backdrop of the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol, a physical attack on Senator Nancy Pelosi’s husband in 2022, and even death threats to our own GA Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger and his family well into 2021 following the results of the 2020 election.
These kinds of events used to feel uncommon or reserved for international headlines out of nations in political turmoil far from here. Yes, acts of political violence took place, but not in the same ways. For nearly a decade in the late-1960s into the 1970s, there was a spike in political violence. It died down by 1980. The major difference in the 1970s was that the violence was aimed at property to affect policy, not at people, explains Rachel Kleinfeld Senior Research Fellow at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
In the last decade, studies indicate that there has been a steady increase in political violence in the US, specifically against individuals, many of them public officials. The US ranks as the most steadily and rapidly increasing of any developed democracy. In a study that examined acts of political violence between Jan. 6th, 2021 and August 2023, Reuters identified 213 cases of political violence. Among these, two thirds of the cases were physical assaults and confrontations, 76 were acts of individual violence, and at least 39 have resulted in death. One such fatality was a one-on-one dispute between two Florida men arguing over Donald Trump’s business acumen.
In a 2023 Reuters/Ipsos poll of 4,500 registered Democrats and Republicans, 20% of respondents said that violence is “acceptable” if committed “to achieve my idea of a better society.” These examples highlight an important distinction. The political violence we are witnessing is not driven by a single party or faction pursuing a specific goal, but is instead fueled by divisiveness aimed at preventing the actions of those on the opposing side.
Why have our politics become so polarized and so emotionally charged to the point that we are attacking one another and public officials? Fear. Kleinfeld explains that when there is little policy overlap between politicians, people fear what the world will become if the other side wins. We begin to view out-party members as “the other” rather than fellow human beings. This makes it much easier to attack each other both figuratively and literally. Politicians play on this fear through strong rhetoric, and sometimes outright lies, to mobilize their base. This leads to heightened emotional polarization and acceptance of political violence.
There are ways to dampen fear-based rhetoric. Kleinfeld notes that politicians tend to be more ideologically polarized that the general public and the national media tend to give disproportionate attention to the most polarizing figures, distorting perceptions of “the other side.” This is compounded by the two-party system, which forces an “us vs. them” mindset. Democracies with ranked choice voting or multiple parties typically experience less polarization. Ranked choice voting, for example, prompts politicians to appeal to a wider audience, beyond just partisan extremes. Likewise, local news, unlike national outlets, promotes community engagement and split-ticket voting, which can moderate views and reduce extreme polarization.
We must normalize civility again. As the research organization More in Common reminds us, most Americans (about 67%) fall into the category of “the exhausted majority.” That is, most of us dislike the vitriol, hold a mix of views, want people to treat the other side as less of an enemy and more of a loyal opposition, and don’t like the tenor of politics today. Those of us in the exhausted majority can stop giving credence to the outsized polarizing voices. We can hold our own side accountable for unfair rhetoric. And we can condemn threats and violence. It isn’t civil and it is dangerous.
Dr. Heather Farley holds a PhD in Political Science, is Chair of the Department of Business and Public Administration, and an Associate Professor of Public Management at the College of Coastal Georgia. She is an associate of the College’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies and an environmental policy scholar. The opinions found in this article do not necessarily represent those of the College of Coastal Georgia.
Reg Murphy Center