America is entering dangerous territory. This weekend’s assassination of Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, the shooting of state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, and the politically motivated manhunt now underway are not just isolated tragedies. They are alarm bells in a country teetering on the edge of normalized political violence. If you’re focused solely on who committed the violence or what side they were on, you’re already missing the deeper crisis: the system is unraveling, and we’re all at risk.
Let’s be clear—the threat of political violence in the United States is no longer hypothetical. It is here. And it is accelerating.
This moment is terrifying, not just because of the violence itself, but because of the growing normalization around it. The truth is, elected officials from both parties are sounding the alarm. They’re reporting death threats, swatting incidents, arson attacks, and the horrifying reality that simply holding public office in 2025 now means living with the constant risk of being targeted. Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson has faced bomb threats at her home. Congressman Jared Huffman notes that members of Congress are “all getting death threats pretty regularly.” In fact, so many lawmakers are hiring private security that the Federal Election Commission had to change the rules to let them use campaign funds to protect themselves and their families.
This is not normal. And yet, we’re starting to treat it like it is.
Yes, the rhetoric from Donald Trump and parts of the far-right is particularly dangerous. No serious observer can deny the effect of Trump’s violent language—from “knock the crap out of them” at rallies, to his praise of those who attacked the Capitol, to pardons for January 6 rioters and the floatation of clemency for men convicted in the kidnapping plot against Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. The Atlantic’s Brian Klaas, a political scientist who studies global violence, noted back in 2023 that it was “dumb luck” America hadn’t yet seen more high-profile political assassinations. Now, he writes, that luck has run out.
But the danger isn’t one-sided. The moment you see political violence as something your enemies do—but your side is above—you contribute to the problem. You begin to justify, to rationalize, to excuse. That’s the road to escalation.
Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon said it plainly: “Political violence is a sickness. And unfortunately, it’s on the rise.” Simon is a Democrat, but he didn’t just point to the far right. He warned that the violence is being stoked “on both sides of the political spectrum.” And that’s the point. If we only care when our side is under threat, we aren’t actually opposing political violence—we’re just playing favorites with it.
We know from political science research what drives this kind of volatility: a toxic mix of extreme polarization, dehumanizing rhetoric, and easy access to deadly weapons. This is not a “both sides” dodge—it is a structural analysis. It explains why political violence is increasing across the board, not just in one direction. And it’s why, if you dismiss the threat because you think it only happens to people you disagree with, you’re not just wrong—you’re part of the problem.
This isn’t about moral equivalency. It’s about moral urgency. It’s about facing the crisis for what it is: a societal failure of empathy, civility, and accountability, in a country with 400 million guns and plummeting levels of trust in institutions.
You can hold Trump accountable for his demagoguery and still recognize that there are larger forces at work. You can condemn the shooter in Minnesota without pretending that political violence is always just a “lone wolf” problem. What we are witnessing is not just individual pathology—it’s the logical consequence of a fraying republic, of political leaders who inflame rather than calm, and of media ecosystems that thrive on outrage.
The terrifying reality is that the threats don’t come from a centralized group or organized militia. They come from everyday Americans who have become convinced—through years of radicalization online and offline—that their political opponents are enemies, traitors, or worse. Some, like the Minnesota shooter, are known figures in their communities, even involved in local governance or religious missions abroad. That should chill all of us.
And yet, when these tragedies happen, there is still a temptation to retreat into tribal blame. Democrats highlight right-wing extremism. Republicans point to left-wing protest violence. But neither narrative is sufficient. Because violence doesn’t need everyone to participate—it just needs everyone else to look away.
We’ve already seen what happens when violent rhetoric becomes background noise. We’ve seen it with Trump encouraging his followers to “liberate” states, with attacks on Pelosi’s family, with pipe bombs mailed to critics, with rising swatting and intimidation campaigns, and now with literal assassinations.
And still, the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships—the very federal program designed to prevent targeted violence—was gutted under Trump. According to Reuters, the Department of Homeland Security cut its full-time staff from 45 to just a handful. This is madness. How do you claim to be tough on crime while dismantling the very infrastructure that exists to stop political violence before it begins?
This is not just about government either. It’s about culture. It’s about what we allow, what we share, what we laugh at online, and what we tolerate in our leaders. You don’t have to throw a punch or fire a gun to be part of the erosion. You just have to excuse it, downplay it, or justify it when it’s politically convenient.
We are in a moment of reckoning. If we don’t reject political violence across the board—no matter the target, no matter the motive—we risk losing far more than civility. We risk losing the fragile trust that holds democratic society together.
There’s a reason Senator Huffman described his work now as a “difficult balance” between resisting authoritarianism and not fueling escalation. It’s a line we all have to walk. We must not flinch from calling out injustice. But we must also resist the easy impulse to mimic the rage of those we oppose. Otherwise, the cycle continues.
Political violence is not some abstract fear. It is here, it is growing, and it is terrifying. And unless we commit, collectively and unequivocally, to condemning it—no matter who it comes from or whom it targets—we will see more tragedies, more funerals, more headlines like the one out of Minnesota.
The flames are already rising. We have to stop pretending they aren’t.
“They are alarm bells in a country teetering on the edge of normalized political violence. If you’re focused solely on who committed the violence or what side they were on, you’re already missing the deeper crisis: the system is unraveling, and we’re all at risk.”
Yeah, I totally agree. Been calling this out for years. But I hope you’ll agree that one of the biggest problems here is the left gaslighting people with “mostly peaceful” and “only a small part of the City”. January 6th was mostly peaceful and was in a small area of the City. But the problem wasn’t the mostly peaceful part in either case, the problem is the violence in all cases.
We have normalized the killing of Jews, the killing of executives, the killing of politicians. What does all this have in common? The politics of envy. The successful had it coming. If you are a success, you must have oppressed, and the sentence is death. At my hands. A mentally unstable socialist-anarchist. That can’t be OK if we don’t want our society to unravel. Here in Davis, it starts with arresting masked protesters.
Not tell me what’s wrong with all the political murders from the right.
“ut I hope you’ll agree that one of the biggest problems here is the left gaslighting people with “mostly peaceful” and “only a small part of the City”. January 6th was mostly peaceful and was in a small area of the City. But the problem wasn’t the mostly peaceful part in either case, the problem is the violence in all cases. ”
I’m troubled by your comment. In another article today, I interview folks involved in a lawsuit against Sacramento.
The phrase “mostly peaceful” is statistically accurate: studies show that over 90–95% of Black Lives Matter-related protests involved no violence or property damage whatsoever. The phrase is often used to counter sensationalist portrayals in the media that focus disproportionately on isolated incidents of looting or clashes.
January 6 wasn’t mostly peaceful in any sense of the word. The key point of January 6 was the physical trespass into the capital with various intentions.
One of the points raised in the interview I did is that in Sacramento, there were people who committed crimes, but most of the people who were victims of police force weren’t breaking laws. The example of my friend Danny Garza – who was discussed during the interview is a tragic one. Garza was sitting on the sidewalk, clearly wearing a green legal observer hat and was INTENTIONALLY shot in the head with a rubber bullet. He suffered brain damage, a concussion, and his once promising legal career is gone. It was needless and horrible and he had done absolutely nothing wrong.
The idea that violence by some justifies this kind of response is irresponsible.
“The idea that violence by some justifies this kind of response is irresponsible.”
I never said anything of the sort. You bring up this horrible example right after saying you are disturbed by my comments, then bring this up as if I’d condone the use of force in this case. I don’t.
But you go right straight back to your narrative that January 6th wasn’t mostly peaceful and most BLM were peaceful. I agree that most marches are peaceful, but that’s irrelevant. You can’t say that with people rocking federal officers and cars burning in the background or people believe they are being gaslit. You (you and left-wing media) need to change your narrative if you are going to actually make the changes that will lead to less violence, and that means focusing on the violence from your own side as the severe problem that it is, even if it’s a tiny percentage of protests. As I said a few days ago, if you have a skyscraper on fire, the narrative isn’t that 99% of buildings are not on fire, the narrative is that the skyscraper is on fire, and admit when a small fringe of your side did it, and condemn them.
The people will never forget the reporter saying “mostly peaceful protests” at a BLM riot with burning buildings in the background of their telecast.
“The phrase “mostly peaceful” is statistically accurate: studies show that over 90–95% of Black Lives Matter-related protests involved no violence or property damage whatsoever. The phrase is often used to counter sensationalist portrayals in the media that focus disproportionately on isolated incidents of looting or clashes.”
I guess we forgot about examples of for instance the Republican baseball practice where a left wing activist shot four players and almost killed Steve Scalise. Other than that it was a 90-95% mostly peaceful baseball practice.
How is this comment helpful?
He’s making the same point I’m making. I understand what you said, but that’s not how the media is portraying “mostly peaceful” and “a small part of the city”. It’s being used politically, and you have to be a true believer to believe it. But true, most states have not had members of congress murdered by assassins.
Keith is doing exactly what I think we should not be doing, and he is comparing protesters to someone who attempted to murder a congressman, I don’t see either approach as helpful at this point. I worry less about where things are (although they are concerning) than about where things are going.
“I worry less about where things are (although they are concerning) than about where things are going.”
That’s just rhetoric. Sounds like you are saying you are OK with the current level of political violence, but if it got some % worse, then you’d be concerned. I’m not a numbers guy, as numbers are all from the past. Potential and vibe and energy is all there is. The country is already there, a pot that is at 211.9°F, and as already boiled over a few times.
Alan:
I don’t think anyone is OK with the current level of political violence — that’s a straw man.
But I do think that reacting to the present moment without a grounding in history is problematic.
Yes, it’s concerning. But to act like we’re uniquely on the edge of civil collapse without looking at precedent is ahistorical and unhelpful.
You say we’re at 211.9°F — the metaphor works rhetorically, but it ignores the actual temperature we’ve been at before. Between 1971 and 1972, there were over 2,500 domestic bombings in a single year, many linked to radical political groups. During Reconstruction, the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist militias conducted widespread paramilitary terror, often with the backing of local law enforcement. The period around the Civil War was soaked in blood, not vibes.
This doesn’t mean we dismiss the threats we face now — far from it. But panic and historical amnesia only feed the polarization and fear that drive violence in the first place. If we want to understand what’s coming, we need to study what’s already happened. Otherwise, we confuse a dangerous moment with the worst we’ve ever seen — and that mistake has consequences.
And yes there were the 2 assassination attempts on Trump plus the health insurance CEO. So now were up to 4 direct murder attempts by those associated with the left. (The anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim attacks emanate on a different political axis.) We’ve lost track of the fatal attacks from the extremists from the right. But what’s more important is what we hear from the elected officials on each side. From the Democrats, we universally hear outrage and calls for addressing the problem by limiting access to lethal playtoys. From Republicans, we hear “thoughts and prayers” or not even that. We’ve heard nothing from Trump about the Minnesota assassinations.
Yes, there is property damage in a small number of demonstrations, but the rise of the masked antifa was propagated in response to the violent attacks by right wing extremists on peaceful demonstrators.
And further, many of those masked “instigators” turned out to be disguised law enforcement officers. Demonstrators also mask due to retribution by law enforcement encouraged by conservative and reactionary politicians who want authoritarian responses. The real solution is to remove the violent elements from the police forces, but that will require cooperation by police. My solution there is to require all court decisions and settlements for police misbehavior be paid out of law enforcement pension funds with commensurate reductions in benefits. That will create strong incentives for internal enforcement.
There is much wrong with what Richard has put forward here.
Let’s just start with this:
Richard says ” We’ve heard nothing from Trump about the Minnesota assassinations.”
But it was easy to find this: “President Trump released a statement, saying: “I have been briefed on the terrible shooting that took place in Minnesota, which appears to be a targeted attack against state lawmakers. Our Attorney General, Pam Bondi, and the FBI, are investigating the situation, and they will be prosecuting anyone involved to the fullest extent of the law. Such horrific violence will not be tolerated in the United States of America. God Bless the great people of Minnesota, a truly great place.”
RMc: “We’ve heard nothing from Trump about the Minnesota assassinations.”
Why would you say something like that? It took me a few seconds to find numerous headlines such as: “Trump Condemns “terrible shooting” of Minnesota Lawmakers”
RMc say: “the rise of the masked antifa was propagated in response to the violent attacks by right wing extremists on peaceful demonstrators.”
That’s just speculation. I was told the Proud Boys were coming to Charlie Kirk in Davis, and all I saw was 50-70 masked anarchist wannabees throwing eggs at and charging cops with umbrellas, then breaking the glass in the doors of the Rec Hall. I was there for hours, sometimes inside the anarchist group (because they moved around and surrounded me at one point, not because of me, just because). They were totally the initiators, not the cops, and no proud boys. Same at Riley Gaines event.
RMc say: “many of those masked “instigators” turned out to be disguised law enforcement officers.” I’m not saying this doesn’t happen, it does. But, receipts?
RMc say: “Demonstrators also mask due to retribution by law enforcement encouraged by conservative and reactionary politicians who want authoritarian responses.”
Back in the day, people took the responsibility for their actions. Arrest and jail time was part of the game. Now it’s whiny cowards who demand organic food and to be released from the big bad cops. Greta posted for people to ask her government to get her out. Such courageous words considering her supposed mission.
RMc say: “The real solution is to remove the violent elements from the police forces, but that will require cooperation by police.”
Of course, and the real solution in the middle east is to remove all the Jews, or was it remove all the Muslims? Neither of which is going to happen, nor are violent elements going to be removed from police, though we should always try, and do whatever society can do to keep cops from protecting each other when there is a bad apple. But if 25% of plumbers, psychiatrists, golf caddies and baristas suck, how are we going to keep 25% of cops from sucking? (though I do I hope my anesthesiologist pool is near 100%)
I don’t usually take the time to actually respond to this, but come on Alan, you’re abusing sarcasm at best here and at worst wholly distorting the issues.
“All I saw was 50-70 masked anarchist wannabees throwing eggs at and charging cops with umbrellas… They were totally the initiators, not the cops.”
This is anecdotal and highly selective. One protest, even assuming an accurate account, doesn’t invalidate the broader, well-documented pattern of right-wing instigation and violence that gave rise to counter-mobilization like Antifa.
“Back in the day, people took the responsibility for their actions.”
This argument is detached from reality. The reason people wear masks today is not cowardice—it’s digital surveillance, doxxing, and violent retaliation. Protesters (especially women, trans people, people of color, and immigrants) are frequently targeted online or physically attacked after being identified in photos.
This is one of the most egregious parts:
“Of course, and the real solution in the Middle East is to remove all the Jews, or was it remove all the Muslims?”
This analogy is grotesquely inappropriate. Richard is suggesting the removal of violent individuals from law enforcement—a specific reform goal supported by ample data and real-world policy proposals. To equate that with ethnic cleansing or religious expulsion in the Middle East is a disingenuous straw man and a lazy way to mock reform rather than engage it.
It also trivializes a genocidal frame (“remove all the Jews”) to score rhetorical points. That’s not just intellectually dishonest—it’s morally offensive.
“If 25% of plumbers, psychiatrists, golf caddies and baristas suck, how are we going to keep 25% of cops from sucking?”
This analogy misses the central issue: plumbers and baristas don’t carry guns, make arrests, or kill people with legal impunity. The public trust and immense power given to police means their failings carry vastly greater consequences. The “bad apples” excuse is a myth—institutional accountability, not individual morality, is the problem.
And ironically, if 25% of anesthesiologists “sucked,” we’d be in national crisis mode. So why tolerate that in policing?
Overall, Alan’s tone drips with contempt—for protesters, for Greta Thunberg, for reformers. He doesn’t refute Richard’s points so much as ridicule them. It’s a rhetorical strategy designed not to persuade, but to belittle. That alone tells you he’s not really engaging in good-faith debate.
Actually I was engaging in good faith, but nice job wasting time writing all that. You put a lot of words in my mouth assuming my tone and my motivations. And you wonder why we end up with political violence? How about you tone it down, Skippy?
and two Palestinian shot in New Hampshire…and two Jew shot in Florida by another Jew,,,who thought they were Palestinian. And Tree of Life mass shooting based on someone who believed the Great Replacement Conspiracy theory push by Trump and Tucker Carlson.
Historical metaphors are tricky Dave
In 1919-1920 post WW one/post Kaiser/pre-weimar chaotic Germany there were assinations by both left and right …but right did 90%. of them.
Which side of political spectrum has long supported guns and militias as normal?
For what it’s worth, I’m not worried at all.
There’s always been periods of violence and assassinations in this country (far worse than now). Remember Vietnam, a couple of Kennedys, MLK and Malcom X? (Don’t know much about the latter, however.)
And yet, at the same time – the smart guys were largely ignoring all that and working on traveling to the moon. (Of course, we now have one smart guy trying to get us to Mars, but maybe he isn’t that smart after all since he’s also become involved in nonsense.)
And how many people has Trump actually deported (e.g., compared to his predecessors, at this point?)
Honestly, I sort of look down on those who protest in the streets (in regard to ANY current issue or individual). Wasting their time/energy – even more than commenting on a blog (which you can at least do without even leaving your home).
Plus – the country largely agrees with Trump regarding illegal immigration. Did anyone think it wouldn’t get ugly if he followed-through on his plans?
The way to deal with illegal immigration is to eliminate incentives. Unfortunately, there are American interests who benefit from illegal immigration – and are even having influence on Trump (e.g., farmers, hotel owners, etc.). You can put school districts in that same category, since they receive funding from the state REGARDLESS of citizenship of their customers.
I think you’re foolish not to worry at all.
Adding this thought:
Trump’s first-term deportation numbers were similar to Obama’s second term—but raw numbers obscure the methods and intentions. Trump used cruelty as spectacle: family separations, detention of toddlers, abuse of asylum seekers, militarization of the border, and the abuse of local police partnerships. And now, he’s doing mass deportation, and has toyed with internment camps, and the end of birthright citizenship. The policy threat is no longer about metrics—it’s about openly authoritarian governance.
To ask, “how many people has he deported yet?” while ignoring the escalating rhetoric, infrastructure, and intention is like asking, “How many laws did Hitler break in 1932?” The problem is where this is heading, not how far we’ve slid already.
Masses streaming across the border is also cruel. The dangers they face and the child abductions and the money for cartels. Do you not even factor that in to your statement?
Both parties are to blame for not coming up with an immigration policy that reflects today’s world.
You did see where Trump backed down in the face of his business allies, right?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-reversal-may-exempt-farms-hotels-immigration-raids-rcna212958
Most of the rest of the stuff you cite above is a sideshow (like how they marched those prisoners in El Salvador with their heads forced downward), and sending Kristi Noem to pose in front of them. I dunno, I guess that appeals to his base. Personally, all I could think of is what they’d do to Ms. Noem if they had a chance to do so.
But some of what you cite is actually a purposefully-inflammatory description. (Not that you’re personally creating that – just repeating it.)
Overall, the situation reminds me of “they’re eating the cats, they’re eating the dogs”, which most people viewed as humorous I think.
Yes, I did see that. Trump should have maybe thought all that through before deporting people en masse, instead of focusing on deporting criminals and getting a handle on border crossings which a much higher percentage of Americans can get behind and was the focus of his campaign rhetoric. I don’t understand why Trump acts this way — shooting himself in the foot first, revising second. He would have had a huge majority behind him had he started with the more rational policy.
I hate all the people who say things like “late stage capitalism” but there is a case to be made that our system was ALWAYS going to end up with escalating violence because of the structural incentives built into the way we do things.
Our open campaign finance laws mean that “represenattive democracy” is dead, and it has been replaced by a nationalized duopoly of political organizations neither of which are interestd in reform, and are solely focused on beating each other.
The gamesmanship here has only NOT been violent in the past because of “norms” around good conduct. Do we remember when in a town hall a woman referred to Obama as a “muslim” in a pejorative way and McCain said “no madam, mr obama is a good man, he and I just see things differently”
That kind of civility is a choice, its not encoded in law, and when one side sees benefit to breaching those norms, then the standrads get lowered across the board ( And lets be real, trump just drove a tank right over those norms… with some of the comments mentioned here… and remember when he suggested that ‘second ammendment people might be able to figure that out’ with response to hillary?). Remember when Michelle Obama exhorted that “they go low, we go high”. She was abjectly wrong about that. Going low wins elections. That is one enduring lesson of trumpsim
There is blame on either side true, but not at all equally. Trumpism follows the fascist tactic of intentionally “othering” people especially marginalized communities, de-humanizing them, and inspiring stochastic terrorism amongst his supporters. He hasnt even been that subtle about it.
its not too far from the normalization of that to an acceptance of the use of force by extension in the streets…. and if we normalize the fact that ICE agents can break your car windows, ram your cars with theirs, and pull people off the streets without showing a warrant or any identification… then we are just frogs sitting in a pot that is slowly beginning to boil.
I always figure you have to throw a curve to get Alan’s attention – clearly he did read it