Political violence in America: the reason for its rise and what we can do about it

With the recent assassinations of right-wing political activist Charlie Kirk and Democratic Minnesota Representative Melissa Hortman, political violence has been much discussed throughout the United States. Sifting past the opinions and reactions, the legacies and martyrdoms, one important question remains: why? This country has existed under a two-party system for almost 250 years. Recently, however, there has been a notable increase in threats against election workers, invasions of government buildings, and assassination attempts on political figures. Prior to the assassination attempt on President Trump in 2024, the last president to have been wounded in an attempt was Ronald Reagan in 1981. So, why have we seen this upturn in political violence in modern politics? 

This increase can be traced back to Donald Trump’s meteoric rise through the ranks of the Republican Party. Before I begin, I should specify that this is by no means a hit piece on President Trump. Whether you agree or disagree with his politics, this analysis is independent of that. Trump ran a uniquely personal race, leaning heavily on his personal agenda, beliefs, and self-proclaimed expertise. Historically, this has not been the prevailing practice. In fact, just two elections before Trump’s first bid, Democrat Barack Obama was running against Republican John McCain. At a rally, one of McCain’s supporters made a derogatory remark about Obama. McCain pushed back on this, calling Obama a “decent man,” and clarifying that their adversarial relationship was solely due to their conflicting political ideals. Compare this to President Trump, who has said, “Nobody knows more about taxes than me, maybe in the history of the world.” He is not arguing that Republican tax policy is more beneficial to Americans than that of the Democrats; Trump is arguing that he is uniquely equipped to solve the problems facing America today. 

This shift from ideas and agendas to individuals and politicians is the first in a long line of dominoes that have led to an increase in political violence. When the focus was on the ideas of the party, candidates were forced to be less extreme. They needed to maintain support with their party, which meant catering to a large variety of opinions, convictions, wants, and needs. When campaigns are run on the merits of an individual, like in the case of President Trump, the focus shifts from the agenda of the party to the agenda of the individual. Without the need to comply with the majority of the party and their views, individuals can push their more radical agendas. This process has led to a deepening of the partisan divide. There is no room for agreement on even the smallest issue, because in running an individual campaign, you must prove that you are better equipped than your opponent. To agree with them is to admit uncertainty, or worse, the lack of complete confidence in your own ability. 

Although the parties have drifted far apart, the national media makes the divide appear even greater. Sensationalized headlines, designed to generate views and clicks, promote the most radical, extreme aspects of the political spectrum. Thus, to the average American, the two parties seem more irreconcilable than they are in reality. 

So, what is the leading cause of political violence? It is the fact that people are no longer able to find common ground with those with whom they disagree. With neither side willing to listen to the other, citizens can come to the conclusion that the only way to enact meaningful change is through violence. Americans have become so disconnected from one another that violence has usurped discourse. The unfortunate truth is that it will be difficult to reverse what has already been done. In a world governed by social media and short-form content, people don’t have the patience or wherewithal to interpret nuanced differences between political ideologies. What people want is black and white, right and wrong, and in this individualized political realm, that is what has been given to them. The only way to improve the situation is for those deeply entrenched in their beliefs to consider, even briefly, that they might be mistaken. Only with this humility can we return to genuine discourse and a true representation of the American people.