The recent assassination attempt on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, which left one rally attendee dead and the candidate and two others injured, was not an isolated incident. The high-profile incident comes amid low-level attacks and violent protests across the country, a sign that too many Americans are increasingly willing to fight the idea of fists, bullets and Molotov cocktails. It’s a sign of an existential political climate in which no one thinks they can afford to lose, or allow their opponents to win.
rattlesnake is JD Tuccille’s weekly newsletter. If you care about government overreach and real threats to everyday freedoms, this is for you.
not an isolated incident
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reported on July 23, “A Michigan man used an all-terrain vehicle to run over an 80-year-old man while he was placing a Trump sign in his yard, police said. The apparent attacker of a politically motivated attack committed suicide after confessing to police.
Days later, anti-Israel protesters vandalized property and clashed with police in Washington, D.C., becoming almost routine.
Michigan’s partisan attackers, would-be assassins with unclear motives, and over-the-top protesters do not truly represent popular support for violence. They are often lone actors or extremists within their own movements. But a majority vote is not required before people and property are attacked. All it takes is someone willing to be physically active, and many people meet that standard.
Politics plagued by violent few
Last month, Robert A. Pape, a political science professor at the University of Chicago who studies political violence, released the results of a study on Americans’ attitudes toward the use of violence to achieve political ends. He found that 10 percent of respondents agreed that “it would be reasonable to use force to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president.” 6.9% of respondents disagreed, agreeing that “the use of force to restore Donald Trump to the presidency is justified.”
When questions about the legitimacy of violence were given a broader scope, the researchers found that more people were willing to use violence. Last year, a study by the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program found that “one-third of respondents… believed violence was usually or always justified in furthering at least one of 17 specific political goals,” Includes preventing discrimination based on race or ethnicity and preserving the American way of life based on Western European traditions.
The good news is that even though they are larger, they are still a minority of the population and are outnumbered by those who would rather keep bullets and bombs out of political discourse. The bad news is that it only takes one person to target a candidate or crush a homeowner putting a sign on their lawn. It only takes one, or a few, countless low-profile incidents to show that we are in a cycle of political conflict.
The rising tide of threats and attacks
In March, a California man pleaded guilty to firebombing a Planned Parenthood clinic in Costa Mesa, becoming the third suspect in the crime. They had planned other attacks but were thwarted by their arrests.
In January, the American Experiment Center, the Upper Midwest Law Center and TakeCharge (three conservative groups in Minnesota) were targeted by arsonists in what was believed to be an act of political terrorism. The groups are offering a reward of up to $100,000 “for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible for setting the fire.”
Just a few weeks ago, a car belonging to the family of a city commissioner in Portland, Oregon, was set on fire outside his home. In response, Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt warned that “political violence and political vandalism are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.”
Gonzalez is not the only person who has been violently attacked by those with whom he disagrees.
A May review of data from West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center showed “an increasing number of threats against public officials.” “While there were an average of 38 federal charges per year between 2013 and 2016, this number increased dramatically between 2017 and 2022 to an average of 62 per year.”
The review added that ideological motivations could be proven in about half of the cases, and that this year “a record number of federal prosecutions are expected.”
High-stakes politics and rising illiberalism
This is largely the result of rising tensions in recent years. Political factions have grown from opposing each other to despising each other and viewing their opponents as too despicable and dangerous to allow them to win office and exercise power. Political leaders are tearing themselves apart not just from each other but from entire demographic groups they view as alien, no doubt fueling fears of a criminal justice system and a regulatory state in the hands of their enemies.
Beyond that, both left and right have abandoned liberal ideas about restrained government and tolerance. In its place is a brutal ideology that leaves little room for dissent.
“On the left, a new generation of socialists hopes to overturn the liberal economic order, while the rise of intersectional identity politics replaces long-standing commitments to civil liberties.” reasonStephanie Slade wrote in 2022. support.
This creates an environment in which violence can become another tactic for those who believe their cause is vital. in January, New York Times Interview with Andreas Malm, a celebrity activist who advocates political violence for the climate cause. He clarified that he supported targeting property, not people, but “there is no guarantee that accidents will not happen”.
He also believed that his opponents should not be allowed to use the same tactics in return, saying: “The idea that if you object to your enemy’s use of a certain method, then you must also refuse to use that method yourself, can lead to absurd results.” in conclusion”.
It is worth noting that Malm is Swedish. This suggests that the United States is not alone in seeing activists resort to violence as a preferred means of achieving results.
“Political violence in the United States has much in common with that occurring in recent elections in Germany and India, as well as in France,” Rachel Kleinfeld recently wrote in Foreign affairs.
Shared pain is cold comfort, but it may be the only one available right now.
