The violence at the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner on Saturday underscores 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 a period of increased political violence.
Researchers at the Polarization & Extremism Research & Innovation Lab have documented an increase in the U.S. in recent years of political violence, generally defined as violence that is motivated by politics or is intended to communicate a political message or achieve a political objective. Several recent examples come to mind: the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol; multiple assassination attempts on President Trump; the deadly attacks on Minnesota lawmakers Melissa Hortman and John Hoffman that left Hortman and her husband dead; the attempted murder of Paul Pelosi; the killing of Charlie Kirk. In my home state of Pennsylvania, Gov. Josh Shapiro was targeted in an attack on the governor’s mansion.
There are several important drivers of political violence at work in the U.S. today, according to my own research and research by other scholars. The United States is currently very politically polarized, meaning that Americans are sharply divided against one another along partisan lines. They are suspicious and hostile toward one another, and this produces a tense and volatile environment for politics and public life. This has produced a “zero-sum” environment in which every election and political contest is perceived as a “do or die” moment.
There is also a moral dimension to polarization in the U.S. Each side views members of the other party not as merely having a different view on politics but rather as evil or immoral. The polarized environment has made political violence more normalized. It has also dampened public backlash against political violence when it occurs. This makes political violence more likely.
Political rhetoric has become much more divisive and violent in nature. This works hand in hand with polarization and helps to further normalize political violence. In particular, when politicians use demonizing or dehumanizing rhetoric to attack their opponents — for example, using words that depict their opponents as subhuman — this fosters extremism and helps motivate extremists to hurt their opponents physically.
Disinformation is also an important driver of political violence. A number of people who have engaged in recent acts of political violence seem to have been motivated by conspiracy theories and other forms of disinformation, often gleaned from social media. Disinformation plays a particularly important role in the context of social media communities, where people are exposed to large amounts of disinformation and are sealed off from other sources that might challenge their worldview. This facilitates radicalization and has been shown to fuel political violence in some cases.
A final important factor in the current wave of political violence is the assault on democratic norms and democratic institutions in the United States. U.S. democracy is experiencing pressures that are unprecedented in the modern era. This has damaged Americans’ trust in government, confidence in democratic institutions and opinion of democratic rule itself.
Individuals who are skeptical about democracy are much more likely to express support or tolerance for political violence.
While the U.S. is currently experiencing an uptick in political violence, unfortunately it is not unprecedented. One example would be the highly polarized period in the 1850s in the run-up to the Civil War. In this era, there was a sharp division between abolitionists and advocates of slavery. This culminated in political assassinations, an assault on an abolitionist member of Congress by a pro-slavery member of Congress, and a bloody civil conflict in Kansas between pro- and anti-slavery armed groups.
The early 1900s, right after World War I, saw another increase in political violence sparked by labor issues and violence by the second generation of the Ku Klux Klan. And the 1960s brought intense political violence surrounding opposition to the Vietnam War and backlash to the civil rights movement.
Though there are some unique features about political violence today — namely the influence of social media — we can look for some parallels in these earlier periods.
It is absolutely critical that both Democratic and Republican politicians — politicians from all sides — unite to condemn Saturday’s attack and all political violence. Political commentators and influencers should also condemn this and all use of political violence.
Research amply shows that what political elites — politicians, political leaders, media commentators, online influencers — say in the wake of these sorts of events has a huge effect on citizens’ attitudes. Political elites should adopt rhetoric that does not normalize this sort of behavior.
If the message comes from across the political spectrum, it will be that much more effective at reducing the public attitudes that nurture political violence.
James Piazza is a professor of political science at Penn State. This article was produced in partnership with the Conversation.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
-
Political polarization in the United States has created a “zero-sum” environment where Americans view political contests as existential struggles, with each side increasingly regarding opponents not merely as having different policy preferences but as fundamentally evil or immoral[3].
-
The normalization of political violence within polarized environments has diminished public backlash against such violence when it occurs, creating conditions where political violence becomes more likely[3].
-
Divisive and dehumanizing political rhetoric—particularly when politicians depict opponents as subhuman—directly fosters extremism and motivates individuals to commit violent acts against their political adversaries[3].
-
Disinformation and conspiracy theories distributed through social media communities create echo chambers that seal off individuals from alternative viewpoints, facilitating radicalization and fueling political violence[3].
-
The erosion of trust in democratic institutions and norms has made citizens more likely to tolerate or support political violence, as those skeptical of democracy itself are significantly more receptive to violent political action[3].
-
United States has historical precedent for periods of intense political violence during times of severe polarization, including the 1850s pre-Civil War era, early 1900s labor conflicts, and the 1960s Vietnam War and civil rights period[3].
-
Strong bipartisan condemnation of political violence by political elites—including politicians, commentators, and influencers—has substantial research-backed effects on shifting public attitudes away from supporting violent acts[3].
Different views on the topic
-
Aggressive personality traits, rather than political ideology or partisan affiliation alone, represent the strongest predictor of support for political violence, suggesting that personality-based interventions may be more effective than focusing solely on reducing partisan polarization[1].
-
Research indicates that affective polarization—emotional dislike between partisan groups—is unlikely to cause democratic backsliding or political violence without additional factors, challenging the notion that polarization itself is the primary driver[5].
-
Interventions designed to reduce perceived threats and misperceptions about the other side’s willingness to break democratic norms prove more effective at preventing political violence than programs aimed simply at improving cross-partisan dialogue and understanding[5].
-
The most compelling voices in countering violent extremism come from within ideological in-groups rather than from external political leaders, suggesting that defected members of extremist movements and community leaders should take primary roles in deterring violence rather than broad political condemnation[2].
-
Creating accessible “off-ramps” from radical ideologies through rehabilitation and pro-social reintegration programs—rather than relying solely on political rhetoric—offers a more sustainable approach to reducing political violence by addressing complex radicalization processes[2].
-
The most effective long-term solution to insider political violence involves stopping politicians from catering to violent constituencies through political realignment, potentially requiring constitutional or legislative reforms rather than appeals to bipartisan condemnation alone[4].