Attack threatening Trump reflects rising political violence in US

James Piazza, Penn State

For the third time in three years, Donald Trump has come under threat by an attacker. Many facts remain unclear after a gunman stormed the Washington Hilton [last Saturday], during the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

As the investigation continues, Alfonso Serrano, The Conversation’s politics and society editor, spoke with James Piazza, a political violence scholar at Penn State, about what is driving the rise of political violence in the U.S. and what can be done about it.

This is not the first time Trump has faced political violence. I think the events of Saturday underscore how dangerous this political moment is in the United States. For the past several years – certainly since Jan. 6, 2021 – the U.S. has been experiencing increased political violence, generally defined as violence motivated by politics or intended to communicate a political message or achieve a political objective.

Researchers at the Polarization & Extremism Research & Innovation Lab have documented that political violence has increased in recent years. Examples include the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol; multiple assassination attempts on President Trump; deadly attacks on Minnesota lawmakers Melissa Hortman and John Hoffman that left Hortman and her husband dead; the attempted murder of Paul Pelosi; the assassination of Charlie Kirk; and, in Pennsylvania, an attack targeting Gov. Josh Shapiro.

There are several drivers of political violence at work today. The United States is highly polarized, with Americans sharply divided along partisan lines. This produces a tense and volatile political environment and a “zero-sum” mindset in which elections are seen as “do or die.”

What stands out is the moral dimension of polarization. Each side increasingly views the other not as political opponents but as immoral or even evil. This has helped normalize political violence and dampened public backlash when it occurs, making further violence more likely.

Political rhetoric has also become more divisive and aggressive. When politicians use demonizing or dehumanizing language – depicting opponents as subhuman – it fosters extremism and can motivate individuals to commit violence.

Disinformation is another important factor. Several perpetrators of recent attacks appear to have been influenced by conspiracy theories and false narratives, often spread through social media. Online communities can amplify this effect by exposing individuals to large volumes of misleading content while insulating them from opposing views, facilitating radicalization.

An additional factor is the strain on democratic norms and institutions. U.S. democracy is experiencing pressures that are unprecedented in the modern era, weakening trust in government and confidence in democratic rule. Research shows that individuals who are skeptical of democracy are more likely to tolerate or support political violence.

While the current uptick in political violence is serious, it is not without precedent. The 1850s saw intense polarization leading up to the Civil War, including political assassinations and violent clashes in Kansas. The early 1900s brought labor-related violence and activity by the Ku Klux Klan. The 1960s were marked by unrest tied to the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement.

Today’s environment has unique features – particularly the role of social media – but parallels with earlier periods are clear.

It is critical that politicians from all sides unite to condemn this attack and all political violence. Research shows that what political elites and commentators say after such events strongly influences public attitudes. If leaders across the political spectrum reject violence and avoid rhetoric that normalizes it, they can help reduce the conditions that sustain it.

[Abridged]