Introduction
The recent killing of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University is a tragic reminder of a terrifying phenomenon in our politics: political violence.
Though motivations, perpetrators, and ideologies vary, political violence threatens public safety, democratic norms, and the possibility of civil discourse. In the wake of this event, it is imperative that we reflect, learn, and commit ourselves to solutions instead of more division.
1. What is political violence?
Political violence involves the use of physical force, coercion, or intimidation by individuals or groups to influence or impose political outcomes, control political institutions, or retaliate against political actors or communities. (undrr.org)
As LibreTexts explains, not all violence is political — the key distinction is the intent: violence becomes political when it is motivated by a political purpose, rather than purely criminal or economic aims. (socialsci.libretexts.org)
The United Nations and disaster risk experts likewise classify riots, coups, assassinations, terrorism, ethnic cleansing, state repression, and insurgencies under the broad spectrum of political violence. (undrr.org)
Another important way to classify political violence is to distinguish between state-based violence—such as police brutality, forced disappearances, genocide, or government repression—and non-state political violence, which includes assassinations, terrorist attacks, riots, or insurgent actions. (en.wikipedia.org)
2. Historical examples: U.S. and global
To understand the risks and roots of political violence, it’s helpful to look at past and contemporary events from both the United States and abroad:
In U.S. history:
• The Civil War and Reconstruction-era violence: Following the Civil War, during Reconstruction, white supremacist paramilitary groups — including the Ku Klux Klan — used lynchings, intimidation, and mass violence to influence political outcomes, suppress Black voting, and overturn Reconstruction governments.
• Assassinations of political figures: The killings of Presidents Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, and civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. each reshaped the nation in distinct ways. Lincoln’s assassination in 1865 threw Reconstruction into turmoil and altered the course of post–Civil War unity. Garfield’s death in 1881 and the public backlash fueled civil service reform, changing how federal jobs were awarded. King’s assassination in 1968 ignited nationwide protests, accelerated civil rights legislation, and left a lasting void in nonviolent leadership. Together, these tragedies illustrate how targeted violence against public figures can profoundly redirect political and social landscapes.
• Political violence surrounding civil rights and racial change: During the 1950s and 1960s, Southern segregationists used terrorism, bombings, and violence to resist desegregation and civil rights reforms. For example, the 1963 bombing of Birmingham’s 16th Street Baptist Church killed four young girls and shocked the nation, helping to build support for the Civil Rights Act. Likewise, the violence faced by the Freedom Riders in 1961 highlighted the federal government’s responsibility to protect civil rights activists and enforce desegregation laws.
• Recent election-related violence: Events such as the violence at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, threats or attacks on election workers, and the killings of Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark, along with the shooting of State Senator John Hoffman and his wife, have raised alarm about how fragile democratic norms of civility and nonviolence can become under polarized conditions. These attacks forced states to reevaluate security for elected officials and underscored how political violence endangers representative democracy itself. (journalofdemocracy.org)
• Contemporary partisan violence: Political violence surged for nearly a decade starting in the late-1960s and became a relatively rare occurrence by 1980, aside from a few tragic isolated incidents. However, instances of political violence in the U.S. have begun to climb since 2016. American political violence in the 1970s was more often perpetrated by radical actors on the left and focused largely on destroying property. Reuters found that most of the recent lethal political violence in the U.S. has been perpetrated by radical right-wing actors, and is increasingly targeting individuals rather than property. (reuters.com)
International examples:
• Assassination of political leaders: Across the globe, the assassinations of political figures — like the killing of Indira Gandhi in India (1984), of Anwar Sadat in Egypt (1981), or the murder of opposition politicians in Latin America and Africa — have dramatically reshaped national politics through violence.
• Coup d’états and military takeovers: Examples from Chile (1973), Myanmar (2021), or various African countries where military coups overthrew civilian governments highlight how violent transfers of power can shatter democratic institutions.
• Ethnic cleansing and genocide: The Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide (1994), and the Balkan wars in the 1990s illustrate political violence on a massive scale, often driven by xenophobia, racism, or extremist ideologies, with catastrophic consequences for democracy, civil society, and human life.
• State repression and mass protest: In authoritarian countries or collapsing states, state violence against protestors or opposition groups — for example, in Syria, Myanmar, or during Tiananmen Square in China (1989) — shows how governments sometimes resort to lethal force to control populations and suppress dissent.
3. Risks and impacts of political violence on democracy
Political violence poses multiple risks to democracy, particularly in a deeply polarized political environment like modern day United States.
A. Erosion of public trust and democratic norms: When violence becomes a tool for political ends, it can erode public confidence in democratic institutions, increase distrust in elections and governing bodies, and weaken the rule of law.
B. Chilling effect on free speech and political engagement: Violence intimidates both political leaders and citizens. Protestors, speakers, and organizers may self-censor out of fear, reducing open public debate, civic engagement, and even journalism.
C. Polarization escalates: Violent acts often feed into cycles of blame, retaliation, and radicalization that only deepenpolitical polarization, fuel extremist narratives, and make compromise and dialogue more difficult. (journalofdemocracy.org)
D. Normalization of violence or political martyrdom: When violent acts are framed as heroic, justified, or necessary, or when fallen figures are turned into martyrs, political violence risks being normalized. This can serve to inspire copycats, or to create enduring legacies that fuel future violence.
E. Disproportionate impact on marginalized communities: Historically, political violence has disproportionately affected minority or marginalized groups including racial minorities, religious or ethnic minorities, immigrants, or political dissidents.
F. Long-term mental health and societal trauma: Political violence has well-documented effects on mental health, community cohesion, and civic life. (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
In the current U.S. context, these risks are particularly acute. The killing of Charlie Kirk, whether or not the motive is ever fully known, reverberates not just as an act of violence, but as a potential political event that people immediately seek to interpret, leverage, or weaponize across ideological lines. (cbsnews.com)
4. How extreme political positions and divisive rhetoric contribute to violence
Political violence does not arise in a vacuum. A growing body of research suggests that ideological extremism, particularly when tied to racism, xenophobia, conspiracy theories, or “us vs. them” narratives, can contribute directly to the risk of violence:
• Framing opponents as existential threats makes it easier to dehumanize them and justify violence as self-defense.
• Propaganda and conspiracy narratives create a sense of urgency that legitimizes preemptive violence.
• Calls for retaliation or martyrdom encourage others to act violently to avenge perceived wrongs.
• Violent rhetoric from public figures lowers the barrier to violent action by normalizing aggressive imagery and metaphors. (sciencedirect.com)
• Weaponization of tragedies deepens division by transforming trauma into partisan fuel, rather than a moment of reflection and healing.
5. Why using violent acts or tragedies as political pawns is dangerous — and must be rejected
When a violent act like the murder of Charlie Kirk becomes a flashpoint in political debate, it is tempting for political actors and media to frame the event in partisan terms immediately. But turning tragedies into political weapons is deeply problematic:
A. It lowers the threshold for violence. Once violence is treated as an acceptable political tool, it signals that future disputes may also be resolved through force rather than dialogue or law. For example, after the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, some feared that political assassination could become a recurring strategy in American politics.
B. It obstructs truth and accountability. When tragedies are immediately spun for partisan gain, facts can be distorted or ignored, preventing thorough investigations and undermining trust in institutions. For instance, the Warren Commission’s investigation into President John F. Kennedy’s assassination was clouded for decades by partisan narratives and conspiracy theories.
C. It re-traumatizes communities. Survivors, families, and affected neighborhoods often relive the trauma when violent events are politicized, deepening their pain and hindering healing. The repeated politicization of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 prolonged the grief of survivors and families who sought closure.
D. It undermines empathy and civil discourse. When grief and tragedy are converted into partisan talking points, it discourages compassion and genuine dialogue, replacing understanding with hostility. The aftermath of the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in 2011, for example, was marked by fierce partisan debates that overshadowed empathy for victims.
E. It sets dangerous precedents. When tragedies are consistently politicized, it creates a norm that future acts of violence will also be exploited for partisan gain, encouraging cycles of retaliation rather than accountability and healing. The cycle of politically motivated violence during Reconstruction after Lincoln’s death shows how precedent can embolden further violent acts.
6. Pathways forward: condemning violence, rebuilding trust, and resisting divisive rhetoric
• Unambiguous condemnation: Leaders must condemn violence regardless of ideology or target.
• Accountability and transparency: Investigations must be impartial and rigorous.
• Limit violent rhetoric: Public discourse should avoid dehumanizing metaphors and calls for retribution.
• Promote civic education: Teaching media literacy and critical thinking can reduce susceptibility to extremism.
• Support trauma-informed communities: Recognize political violence as a public health issue.
• Strengthen democratic institutions: Protect elections, judicial independence, and free press at all costs.
• Foster inclusive and civil dialogue across divides: Encourage and create safe spaces for real conversations across divides.
• Focus on shared challenges: Shift politics toward collaborative problem-solving instead of divisive rhetoric.
7. Conclusion
Recent acts of political violence and divisive rhetoric are a tragic signal that political violence is a direct threat to public life, free speech, and democratic norms. Responding to such violence with immediate politicized blame is not the solution. Instead, we must defend nonviolent democratic values, reject violence as a political tool, and recommit ourselves to truth, accountability, and dialogue in the name of progress and in pursuit of a better democracy.
Violence is not an argument nor a form of persuasion, it is a tragic and futile outcome of the human condition bringing about only temporary victories and blinding us from understanding.
