It’s “too soon,” I suppose, to state the obvious, but I’ll do it anyway: Donald Trump, more than anyone else, is responsible for the normalization of political violence in America.
On countless occasions since January 6, 2021, Trump and his allies were asked — exhorted, enjoined, beseeched and begged — to renounce violence as a means of achieving political ends. By and large, they declined. Sometimes outright, sometimes through obfuscation and dissembling, but declination all the same. A steadfast refusal to state, simply and without equivocation, that violence isn’t acceptable in the political arena.
Although polls overwhelmingly suggest most Americans don’t view violence as a legitimate form of political expression — nor violent coercion an acceptable methodology for effectuating political outcomes — the share who do is very high in the Trump era. And on both sides of the political spectrum.
For example, a PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll in April showed one in five US adults thought Americans “may have to resort to violence to get their own country back on track [with] Republicans more likely than Democrats or independents — and slightly more likely than the population overall — to say force may be needed to course-correct.”
Last month, a study conducted as part of a wider effort to understand and track support for political violence in America showed that in the 15 or so months between early April of last year and now (which is to say the period encompassing Trump’s indictments and conviction), the share of Americans who support using force to restore Trump to the presidency rose from 4.5% to 7%.
That 7% figure, study director Robert Pape noted, is “the equivalent of an estimated shift from 12 million to 18 million American adults.” Among Republicans, the share was 10%. For context, the implied number of US adults who support restoring Trump to the presidency by force peaked in September of 2021 at 26 million, according to the study.
Remarkably, the same study showed that when asked about the use of force to coerce members of Congress, it was Democrats who exhibited the largest increase in inclination to violence. Since January of 2023, the share of Democrats who said force is justified to ensure “Congress and other government officials do the right thing” more than doubled, from 7% to 16%. (Among Republicans, it jumped from 12% to 18%.) The same share of Democrats (16%) said the use of force was justified to “prevent Trump from becoming president.”
Late last year, the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program published data from a study conducted in September. It showed, among other things, that “a small segment of the US population considers violence… to be usually or always justified to advance political objectives.”
In the poll, nearly 14% said there would almost surely be a civil war in the US at some point “in the next few years.” Almost 8% said that in the event they believe political violence is justified, they’ll “be armed with a gun.” A tiny sliver of survey respondents (the ones who want to go to jail, apparently) said it was “very or extremely likely” that should political violence become justified in their minds, they’ll “shoot someone with a gun.”
I could go on. Unfortunately. It’s unfortunate that there are more such studies — i.e., studies suggesting Americans increasingly view political violence as justified and inevitable — than there are waking hours in a day. But that’s where we are in America.
Is all of this solely Trump’s fault? Well, no. But that’s a red herring. Nothing’s “solely” anyone’s fault. Is Trump a big (“bigly,” “big league”) part of it? Yes, absolutely. And to suggest otherwise is to be deliberately (ludicrously, disingenuously) obtuse.
Whatever you want to say about the circumstances which pushed America into the arms of a populist demagogue in the first place, Trump’s rhetoric and actions are, more than any single other factor on its own, responsible for shifting perceptions of political violence in America. There’s no way around that. It’s indisputable.
Bottom line: Any account of the attempt on Trump’s life at a rally in Pennsylvania over the weekend which doesn’t at least make mention of Trump’s role in legitimizing political violence is incomplete to the point of being insincere.
For months, Trump threatened a “blood bath for the country” if he isn’t reelected. As the old adage goes, “When you live by the gun,” you materially raise the odds of “dying by the bullet.” Figuratively and, in some cases, literally.
You are spot on! Thanks
Love how the Republicans are blitzing the media today flipping the blame to Biden and associating him with inflammatory rhetoric while the dems hide in their mansions
Seems like the kind of moment a president might want to lead….
As in “yu’re doing a great job Brownie” or handing out paper towel rolls and water bottles to flood victims?
Just today I was talking with a leftist who voiced an opinion that maybe we need a civil war to stem the power of the wealthy pursuing inequality. A dangerous voice indeed, if the poor decides to revolt ‘en masse’ then there is little anyone can do to stop this trend. I reminded him that even talking about inequality was taking power from the well to do.
The right should not pine for an action from which they cannot win, a revolt by the masses can result in an outcome that they will not wish for.
You weren’t talking to a “leftist.” There is no such thing. You were talking to a person, a fellow human being, with left leaning values. Part of the rise in political violence is the labeling of people as if their views define their entire existence. They don’t. If we can no longer see each other as people, but only as agents of political parties, we’re doomed to a divided and violent future.
Fair statement, however I was not focused on massaging intellects with a soft brush. I was simply making a different point. The point was consistent with the article, do be wary of what you wish for. The outcome can be dramatically different than anticipated by political pundits. The brown shirts found that out too late when Hitler and the SS turned on them.
Revolution coming? I was thinking, why not start a charity called Automatic Weapons For The Poor. Let’s get ready. I’m sure the NRA would contribute. LOL.
Revolution sounds crazy but I’m hearing more and more comments. Thinking back to negotiation days when win-win was the desired approach. We criticized win-lose positions as suboptimal claiming of value. Our computer models designed to determine best approach to get win-lose players to cooperate was tit-for-tat; sting defection then cooperate, keep repeating. That old thinking is dead., especially in a political context. Power or avoidance the alternatives, especially in a political context. Far right has already claimed the no flexibility position on this election. Most Democrats think this is an election. It’s very likely a tipping point in my opinion.
I hope you are wrong, we are on the precipice of a large economic boom caused by lowering solar energy costs. We are an energy intensive society and near zero cost of electricity from solar would have dramatic, far reaching positive impacts on our economy. Why we would give it up for a guaranteed horrible future.
Today I was talking with a spiritual leader and I made the following point. Look at countries after a turn to the right:
Germany after WWII
Idi Amin’s Uganda after his reign
Phillipines after Marcos
Italy after Moussolini
Spain after Franco
Virtually guaranteed to destroy the host nation.
H-Man, bold steps in this post. Not sure the timing is appropriate about framing the agenda. A 1/16th of an inch, Trump would be dead today or left in a vegetative state. We probably need to rethink why politics can drive people to kill candidates.
I’m terribly sorry you didn’t like the timing. I should’ve waited until the next Truth Social post where he intimates that his supporters should attack or kill his political rivals, or his next outburst warning of a national “blood bath” in the (now unlikely) event he doesn’t get enough votes.
Interestingly, the calls for Biden to step down have gone silent.
Well they can’t replace him now. It’ll turn the whole sad spectacle that is American politics into an even more tumultuous mess. Honesty, though, this might’ve been yet another reason for Biden to hand it over to someone else. Frame it as a “national reset.” Or something. I don’t know. But it’s not working. The whole thing’s not working. That much is obvious.
Sad, but true.
A case can be made, replacing him was never an option after the first debate. To do so would admit to a grievous error. However no grievous error was made. Body politic did not know the extent of aging that has occurred while in office. To run someone else before the debate could have been seen as a forced error.
The choice today is between a good man who has sacrificed his health for us or a man how would sacrifice us for this wealth and power. And that assessment is being gracious to Donnie.
I think the only thing that will sway people is to look into history what the fascist right has brought to it’s people. Everyone pays a price but the usual suspects: wealthy, journalists, politicians, educated and original supporters often pay the worst price. Surprisingly fascists need a constant supply of enemies therefore their opposition survive for awhile longer than the supporters. I would like to see a table of the various fascist regimes totaling the impact on various groups and the overall economy. It could convince people the folly of not paying attention this time around.
I like this line of thought. Unfortunately it would require a large number of people to read and comprehend the results of your suggested study. And we all know that is not going to happen.
Only need to sway less than 1%. Each person swayed will likely affect 3 others and the total only needs to be 1% or so to make a difference.
Butler, PA? Seriously? Stupid place for a rally.