In America: How Political Violence Grows and Impacts the United States
cspan
On October 10th, Attorney General Pamela Bondi spoke in a press conference in Florida. She took the time to discuss numerous incidents of political violence throughout the nation. Bondi spoke out against recent acts of violence directed towards law enforcement, governors, lawmakers, religious groups, political commentators, and others.
Bondi was joined by the Middle District of Florida and law enforcement organizations to share with the public an example of the repercussions of committing political violence. In an ongoing case, George Russell Isbell Jr. was indicted for mailing threatening communications to political commentator Benny Johnson and his family. Bondi explains her dissent for the violence and shares praise for those combating the threat of political violence.
“We’ve been living through a horrific cycle of political violence in this country … That's why we're standing up here today … We will find you, we will arrest you, and we will extradite you and we will bring you to justice. We cannot allow this political violence to continue any longer. This arrest will serve as a reminder to many do not do this … It doesn’t matter what side of the aisle you’re on.”
Political violence is a dark part of America’s history and continues to rise. Many have been hurt or killed due to the hatred and violence that ensues in the political realm. This violence and hatred, carried out and normalized by Americans, is encouraged by political media outlets’ and government officials’ behavior. The impact of these actions are detrimental to the country's political sociological well-being. The U.S. political atmosphere has created a hostility between differing perspectives and molded an incapability to thoughtfully disagree and debate political topics.
How Political Violence Impacts Democracy
The United States is a democratic republic; the government relies on citizens and elected government officials for political decisions and lawmaking. As violence has increased, its influence on the political landscape has become more severe; the rise of political violence, according to many citizens and experts alike, should concern the country with the government’s ability to function accordingly.
In 2023, Johns Hopkins University published a survey where global scholars assessed how political violence, and to what extent, impacts American Democracy. Using the study’s Violence & Democracy Impact Tracker (VDIT), 94% of scholars say that all pillars of democracy are negatively affected by political violence. These pillars include freedoms of expression, association, voting access, election administration, equality before the law, protection of individual liberties, the independence of the judiciary to act without political interference, and the ability of the legislature to provide oversight of the executive branch of the U.S. government.
45% of scholars considered political violence to be a level three threat or higher. Level three threats have significant erosion of democratic quality with risk of future breakdown. Level four threats have critical effects with risk of imminent breakdown of a system. Level five threats are considered to have effects so severe that a system is no longer considered democratic. The most concerning aspects of political violence, according to scholars, include violence against the electoral process, escalating polarization and partisanship, violence against marginalized communities, and elites encouraging, condoning, or inciting violence.
There has been an increase in threats of violence against government officials in the United States. In 2024, according to Princeton University’s Threats and Harassment Dataset (THD), there were over 600 incidents of threats and harassment against U.S. representatives. Threats to officials constrains representatives’ abilities and willingness to serve their citizens. Furthermore, as a result of political violence, government officials experienced emotional distress, fear in public spaces, and concerns with privacy and safety. These issues result in institutional consequences such as disruptions of community meetings, governance, and strained relations with other government entities.
What Fuels Political Violence in America
Certain preconditions and structural weaknesses can increase the risk of political violence. This includes highly competitive elections that could lead to shifts in balance of power, people’s identities being viewed solely through partisan divisions, electoral voting systems that encourage partisanship, and destabilization of institutions leading to weakened constraints on violence.
The violence occurring today stems from a repetitive pattern of behaviors amongst several social structures. This includes the behavior of the government and political media, the normalization of tribalistic rhetoric, and the condonement or justification of violent acts by the public and influential political figures.
The two-party system limits voters' decision making through “winner-take-all” electoral systems. The Democratic and Republican parties are dominant in the U.S. political system. As they compete against each other to stay in power, they create party guidelines that coerce voters to choose between the parties’ polarized stances. These dichotomous choices create a lack of compromise in politics and suppresses political diversity in the government.
Political media encourages these issues as outlets are often biased, reinforce pre-determined stances, and disproportionately cover the two parties over other political groups. These factors create an environment for viewers where issues are generally only viewed through the morality of the two-party system.
Political rhetoric has become increasingly hostile, with arguments against differing political stances now widely portray the opposition as extreme and dangerous. This practice of dehumanizing and villainizing other stances can encourage extremist groups and radicalized individuals to view political violence as an acceptable solution for political conflicts.
In 2020, President Donald Trump gave a televised speech in Tulsa, Oklahoma for his reelection campaign. The excerpts from his speech demonstrate how Trump engaged in hostile rhetoric glorifying his supporters while villainizing protestors outside the venue:
“You are warriors, thank you. We had some very bad people outside; they were doing bad things. … I stand before you today to declare the silent majority is stronger than ever before. They want to demolish our heritage. And when you see those lunatics all over the streets, it’s damn nice to have [guns]. … Above all, we will never stop fighting for the sacred values that bind us together as one America, we will support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Our incredible success in rebuilding America stands in stark contrast to the extremism and destruction and violence of the radical left.”
In 2023, Trump faced multiple indictments for criminal cases. Trump claimed the trials were politically motivated by the Democratic party. He stated to his supporters after a plea hearing:
“[former President Joe Biden], together with a band of his closest thugs, misfits and Marxists, tried to destroy American democracy.”
In 2024, Biden used disrespectful rhetoric to target Trump supporters after a Trump Rally made comments regarding Puerto Rico, stating:
“the only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters.”
In 2025, Democratic nominee for Virginia attorney general, Jay Jones, disclosed through texts fantasies of shooting then Republican House Speaker Todd Gilbert and his children.
In the texts, Jones described a scenario in which Gilbert “gets two bullets to the head,” followed by a wish that the Republican lawmaker’s children “die in their mother’s arms.”
Social media’s large role in modern communication exacerbates this issue, as polarizing arguments, while arguably harmful to democracy, maximize user engagement. This can skew people’s perspectives and encourage heated political division. Online platforms allow for unstructured contact between opposing perspectives, contributing to the spread of hatred and misinformation and increasing chances of self-radicalization into extremist ideologies. This contact between differing perspectives has been assessed by text analysis as hostile engagement with negative, brief, and low integrative complexity.
What’s The Concern?
The changing political atmosphere in the United States creates greater concern for political violence. Arie Perliger, political science scholar with the University of Massachusetts Lowell, explains if violence is presented as an acceptable tool of politics, it won’t end with only targeting the government or elected officials. He explains that political assassinations happen in waves and often politically divided individuals retaliate to incidences with more violence.
Perliger noted the assassination of Charlie Kirk as unusual in context of past U.S. political violence. Charlie Kirk being a figure in the nonprofit and political activism sphere, rather than a formal elected official, makes him a rarity amongst political killings. Individuals like these are not often targeted by political violence. His assassination could indicate an escalation in violence used in political conflicts within the United States.
In recent years, violent political acts have been committed more individually rather than being carried out by definitive groups. As extreme ideologies become more mainstream, the possibility for self-radicalization increases. These violent independent acts make it challenging to address on a large scale because they are not clearly part of distinctive ideological organized groups.
The condonement and justification of violence in politics supports a horrible idea: “If someone hates you or disagrees with you, then they can justifiably be attacked or killed for their views.” It is essential to denounce political violence to protect this country's democracy. If politically driven people cannot overcome the incapability to respect and cooperate with those they differ with, there will never be peace.
“Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with conflict by peaceful means.”
- Ronald Reagan
