An Examination of Political Violence

The assassination of Charlie Kirk stunned first the audience at Utah Valley University, where he was shot while speaking Sept. 10, and then the country, as footage of his killing quickly spread. Speaking to the nation during the aftermath of Kirk's death, President Donald Trump, while calling for nonviolence and lamenting "the demonization of those with whom we disagree", blamed "a radical left group of lunatics" for the killing; Trump said that leftist political rhetoric and activism was terrorism and hate speech responsible for Kirk's death, and stated that he would "get that problem solved". After the shooting, some users on Bluesky and TikTok made posts glorifying or celebrating Kirk's killing—which, in extreme cases, incited further violence against other right-wing figures, several posting or reposting a meme that said "do Trump next" or "Elon next please".
For many Americans and I may add in other democratic societies, the conservative influencer’s death crystallized a growing fear: a growing prevalence of political violence. But is this true? And is this true throughout the world.
As with most issues the first step to understanding is to separate fact from fiction.
Politically motivated violence in the U.S. is rare compared with overall violence. Political violence has a disproportionate impact because even rare incidents can amplify fear, influence policy and deepen societal polarization. Right-wing extremist violence has been more frequent and more lethal than left-wing violence. In the US based on government and independent analyses, right-wing extremist violence has been responsible for the overwhelming majority of fatalities, amounting to approximately 75% to 80% of U.S. domestic terrorism deaths since 2001. The number of extremist groups is substantial and skewed toward the right, although a count of organizations does not necessarily reflect incidents of violence. However, recent surveys do point to a growing acceptance of violence against political individuals from left leaning groups and individuals.
There is a deep human impulse to whittle reality down into familiar and self-flattering fairy tales. We all gravitate toward information that validates our preconceptions and vindicates our in-groups. It is cognitively taxing to revise one’s model of the world. And it is emotionally uncomfortable to recognize fault in our allies or merit in our adversaries. So, we are all tempted to sand the jagged edges off events until they fit into ideologically convenient frames. This is especially true when there is polarization within a society.
An important first step is to grow an appreciation for the psychology of political violence. Political violence challenges us all, threatening the stability and harmony we seek in our communities and nations. Extreme political polarization has led some scholars to warn that the United States could face conflicts akin to a civil war if current trends continue. From historical conflicts like the Troubles in Northern Ireland to more recent events such as the January 6th U.S. Capitol riot, we’ve witnessed how such violence can tear at the fabric of society, leaving lasting scars on individuals and communities alike. The scope of political violence is broad and multifaceted. It encompasses large-scale conflicts like civil wars and armed conflicts, as well as more targeted acts of violence aimed at specific individuals or groups. Understanding the wide range of political violence is crucial for developing effective strategies to address and prevent it.
High-profile political violence often brings heightened rhetoric and pressure for sweeping responses. Yet the empirical record shows that political violence remains concentrated within specific movements and networks rather than spread evenly across the ideological spectrum. Distinguishing between rhetoric and evidence is essential for democracy. Research suggests that those who mistakenly perceive that their party holds extreme views are far more likely to endorse political violence than those who don’t. In other words, even if your political group is not extreme, if you believe it to be so then you’re more likely to endorse violence against a different political group.
Some research shows that political violence is not random. It becomes far more likely under four conditions: when democracy is declining rapidly, when societies are divided by race, religion or ethnicity, when political leaders tolerate or encourage violence, and when citizens have easy access to guns. If true our neighbours to the South will experience more of this unfortunate occurrence.
Please join the discussion where we will examine the psychology behind political violence, how it is manifesting itself in society, what conditions exacerbate its likelihood, what steps can be taken to mitigate its growth, what is happening in Canada; should we worry….Political violence stimulates our Passion but I want you to step back and allow your Reason to prevail in this exploration. I will be providing a number of links to papers and discussions on political violence in the comments section below shortly which will provide more background and analysis on this matter to help in this exploration.