Political violence in America is alarmingly on the rise.
Once is a tragedy, twice is a coincidence, but thrice is a pattern; it is an interminable game of revenge with far graver consequences. The pendulum of political violence continues to swing back and forth, gaining momentum with each wave as the threat of hatred simmers. It is therefore imperative that this back-and-forth ends with both political parties taking the blind leap of faith to stop seeking vengeance.
It is easy to condemn violence—to repudiate oneself from the ostensibly immoral act—until you, the protester, are shouting for change at an unmoving wall. Nearly a third of Americans have come to believe that violence might be necessary to “get the country back on track.” This number is vastly different from the 19% of Americans who said the same just 18 months ago. The parties seem to share these growing radical sentiments, but it is among Democrats that the data shows the largest increase (16%) in beliefs of violence’s necessity. Considering that the Democratic Party has been reeling since the presidential election loss and the Trump Administration’s polarizing policies thereafter, this observation is unsurprising. The timeline of contemporary political violence begins with the January 6th insurrection, when a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol to attempt a self-coup and overturn election results. It is estimated that around 2000 rioters entered the Capitol during the attack, injuring over 170 police officers and causing damages that amounted to over $2.7 million. The insurrection sought to interrupt the democratic principle of a peaceful transfer of power to the Biden Administration after the 2020 election, while the President pressured former Vice President Mike Pence to illegally turn the election in Trump’s favor.
During his campaign for a second term in the summer of 2024, Trump survived two separate assassination attempts: one in Florida and another in Pennsylvania. It was then that a new wave of violence unfolded. In April 2025, a man broke into Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s mansion and used Molotov cocktails (beer bottles filled with gasoline) to set the house ablaze. The attacker, Cody Balmer, told investigators that he had been “harboring hatred” towards Shapiro for a very long time.
Later, in June, former Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives Melissa Hortman and her husband were murdered by Vance Boelter in their homes. Additionally, Boelter shot Minnesota State Senator John Hoffman and his wife the same night—the couple survived the attack. Boelter had a hit list of over a dozen people, most of whom were prominent Democratic figures with ties to the abortion or Planned Parenthood movement. For most of his life, Boelter was a devout Christian who maintained a fortified belief in the sanctity of life. This faith wavered as his wealth dwindled. Boelter—moving from state to state, job to job—began to follow a far-right website that mongered conspiracy theories about ‘stolen elections’ and ‘evil Democrats.’ Authorities recovered some of Boelter’s handwritten notes. He journaled that he would be “doing what most people know needs to be done, but are not willing to do it themselves.”
Despite all the instances of political violence on this timeline, the singular, most inciting event of them all has been Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Kirk was a right-wing American activist and a vocal supporter of President Trump’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement. During one of his routine debates held on a college campus, Kirk was shot fatally in the neck from over 142 yards away. Tyler Robinson, the shooter, claimed that he had “had enough of his [Kirk’s] hatred.” Kirk’s infamous “Prove Me Wrong” debates, propagated throughout social media, and trademarked radical internet personality, fueled an explosive reaction to the tragedy. His death has intrigued the attention of many who are now piecing the puzzle together, recognizing the worrisome ricochet of violent attacks against political figures.
Political violence is often morally motivated—separate from selfish desires to inflict harm arbitrarily. On a lifeless piece of paper, violence seems completely immoral to the pragmatic and detached reader. On the other hand, it is necessary to understand that the perpetrators were retaliating against something they believed was abhorrent or heinous—the same way one might perceive their acts of violence. This is the premise of Virtuous Violence by UCLA anthropologist Alan Page Fiske, who writes, “The argument is that violence is perpetrated by people who believe that they are doing good by the moral standards that they adhere to.” Perhaps, this is what 30% of Americans think of when looking at what they believe to be a corrupted state of their country.
The aftermath of an irreversible action—political violence in this case—exists so mistakes are not repeated; no one should be killed for their opinion. The perpetrators who justified their violence are often hailed as “trailblazers” or “martyrs,” but they should not be idolized simply because they have pointed a spotlight on a movement. Their actions should be considered as they are: irreparable damage against people who do not hold the same opinion. Violence may seem like the most impactful solution— one that will shake people by the shoulders or shock them like an icy bucket of cold water might. However, it is inevitably regrettable; violence is unforgivable and an unsustainable means to solve any nuanced issue. Breaking the cycle is difficult because diplomacy seems to lurch, but it is the only solution that will prevail across stances and opinions. Otherwise, the pendulum will swing back and forth; left and right; one act of revenge, just so someone else can fall victim to another vengeful retaliation.
