The country has seen increased concerns about political violence following the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
A recent joint report of the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security have identified domestic terrorism committed by individual offenders as the greatest threat to the United States. Additionally, studies show that threats against Congress increased tenfold between 2016 and 2021, while others reveal that one in five Americans tolerate the use of violence to bridge political divides.
Following July 13 assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump and a alleged second attempt On September 15, many Americans are concerned about the risk of increased political violence after this year’s elections.
With just days until Election Day, The Chronicle interviewed professors at the Sanford School of Public Policy to learn how this trend of increased violence came to be and how it might develop after the election.
Bruce Jentleson, distinguished professor of public policy and William Preston Few Professor of Political Science, expressed particular concerns about stochastic terrorism – violence motivated by hostile public rhetoric – at the local level.
“The data shows that no other country has experienced as much political violence at the local level as we have,” Jentleson said. “…Bricks thrown at houses, death threats on social media against people… there are many other things going on. »
Jentleson emphasized the importance of considering current political violence in the context of historical political unrest in the United States.
He described Trump as “both the cause and effect” of the current stochastic terrorist landscape. According to Jentleson, past instances of violence that “preceded (Trump) were in some ways part of his rise, and then he really went further.”
Since Trump entered the political sphere, Jentleson noted that political violence “has largely come from one side and not the other.”
A July report noted that terrorist attacks in the United States have increased rapidly since 2016, many of which have been linked to right-wing ideologies such as “anti-abortion” and “anti-inclusiveness” views.
“Political violence is part of our political traditions, more than we care to acknowledge, and thanks to the influence of a leader like Donald Trump, we have never before had a leader at this political level who has encouraged and tried to legitimize violence,” he declared. “…He definitely added to it (and) made it more dangerous.”
According to a 2022 study According to a political scientist at Pennsylvania State University, increased acceptance of political violence comes with increased partisanship, which is in turn linked to a 34% higher likelihood of political violence.
The situation in the United States reflects a growing global trend toward far-right conservatismanti-immigrant populism and political violence in other Western democracies. Yet Jentleson continues to believe that the severity of political violence in the United States is unprecedented compared to similar right-wing movements.
Stephen Buckley, the Eugene C. Patterson Professor of Journalism Practice and Public Policy, said he was surprised at how quickly political violence spreads through the news cycle these days.
“When you look at or think about the second assassination attempt on former President Trump, it made headlines and collapsed in maybe 48 hours,” Buckley said. “It didn’t seem to grab our attention the way you might think an assassination would. »
He pointed to distrust of the media as another factor contributing to a hostile political landscape, often intensified by misinformation spread on social media platforms and echo chambers caused by intense partisanship.
According to Buckley, the role of the media has long been one of transparency, allowing the flaws of the government system to be publicly “exposed.” But this growing public distrust makes it more difficult for journalists to “play the role of honest intermediary… sociocultural arbiter.”
“The erosion of trust in the media means it is incredibly difficult for us to solve some of the thorniest and most complex problems in our society,” he said. “…This place where we have historically been able to grapple with difficult issues feels like a place where the ground is no longer safe. »
Ultimately, Jentleson believes that civil discourse is a responsibility that comes with the rights of being a citizen and that the collective will of the nation must adhere to this philosophy.
“I believe our moral obligation is to preserve a peaceful democracy, regardless of the strength of our opinions,” Jentleson said. “I do not believe that the ends justify the means of political violence.”
Get The Chronicle delivered straight to your inbox
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter. Cancel anytime.
