An Assassination Attempt and a Crisis of Legitimacy
The attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, dramatically escalates political tensions in a society that neither wants nor can afford such escalations. Former presidents and various political and media figures have appropriately expressed sympathy for Mr. Trump and condemned the violence. Yet, these might not be enough to avoid further—and more consequential—political violence.
Many have pointed to America’s toxic politics as a contributor to the July 13 shooting. The degree to which political partisans describe their rivals as evil enemies hell-bent on destroying the country rather than fellow citizens with different points of view is especially troubling. Yet the problem is much deeper than this.
The United States is undergoing a crisis of legitimacy. Like other such crises, today’s crisis could destroy the system it threatens, with devastating consequences for America and the world. The first step in preventing this is to understand what is occurring and why. Reducing the problem to a single cause—Donald Trump—is not only a bad analysis but also a poor and even dangerous foundation for efforts to overcome a historic challenge.
What is essential to realize is that crises of legitimacy often appear to progress in a linear manner until their final days or even their final hours. From this perspective, a collapse of political legitimacy is quite like a stock market collapse. Indeed, both processes rely on the same driver—human psychology—and reflect the same occurrence, namely, widespread loss of confidence. Yet, stock markets win back investor confidence if only after a period of years, so long as their political basis remains intact. Political systems that lose their legitimacy rarely have this opportunity; instead, a new system emerges. This process is rarely a peaceful one.
Over the last five decades, America’s political and media elites have been shockingly energetic in attacking the legitimacy of the political system that produces and maintains them. They have done so on a bipartisan basis. And they have done so much more vigorously with the advent of cable television and online media that precisely target specific segments of American society.
Consider American political messaging. For decades, elected Democrats and Democratic political activists have regularly and routinely assailed America’s political system as unrepresentative and unfair. During the same decades, elected Republicans and Republican political activists have regularly condemned the U.S. federal government as ineffective or even menacing.
Regardless of who they are hearing—and some Americans are listening to both Democrats and Republicans—voters hear continuous attacks on “the system” or on “systemic” problems in America’s politics, economy, and society. It is not possible to attack “the system” or to describe America’s challenges as “systemic” without undermining the legitimacy of the U.S. political system. Both approaches directly assault public trust in the institutions of government. Because both parties (and supporting activist groups) seek to exploit every possible legal loophole to secure electoral victories, this criticism was bound to expand beyond America’s institutions to its governing processes, including elections. And it has done so.
The American media have made this problem worse. Since Richard Nixon’s resignation following the Watergate scandal, U.S. media have relentlessly hunted for, exposed, and denounced flaws in virtually all American institutions, including federal, state, and local governments, legislatures, courts, the military, businesses, churches, charities, and ultimately the media itself. Yes—this is their job. Notwithstanding this, their work has generally buttressed the credibility, widened the dissemination, and intensified the impact of political attacks on American institutions.
The great danger is that after the Butler shooting, events may develop more independently of the actors and the environment that produced these tragic moments. The motive for the assassination attempt remains unknown at this time, but this may not matter: the attack is widely considered politically motivated. Even if the perpetrator is found to have been mentally ill, it will be challenging to frame the attempted shooting of a presidential candidate as a non-political event. How Americans respond to the attempt—and to the deaths that took place—will be decisive.
Some of the most serious risks involve committed activists who may see further violence—or hard-edged efforts to prevent it—as not merely justified but also necessary. One can certainly imagine that some extreme pro-Trump individuals or groups may seek to organize “citizens militias” to provide (from their perspective) additional security at future campaign rallies or, for that matter, at polling stations on election day. Some or all may carry firearms, either legally or illegally. How might they interact with law enforcement, with anti-Trump demonstrators, or with passersby they dislike? Could extreme anti-Trump groups organize in a similar way for other reasons? How might they interact with America’s government and society? The period leading to and through election day and inauguration day will be especially dangerous times.
Avoiding further political violence will require much more than rote denunciations. It will also require active leadership on both sides, from the top, to stop the extravagant rhetoric, stop demonizing fellow Americans, stop undermining America’s government and its institutions, and start acting like responsible public officials to whom voters have entrusted their families, their fortunes, and their lives.
Paul J. Saunders is President of the Center for the National Interest and a member of its board of directors. His expertise spans U.S. foreign and security policy, energy security and climate change, U.S.-Russia relations and Russian foreign policy, and U.S. relations with Japan and South Korea. Saunders is a Senior Advisor at the Energy Innovation Reform Project, where he served as President from 2019 to 2024. He has been a member of EIRP’s board of directors since 2013 and served as chairman from 2014 to 2019. At EIRP, Saunders has focused on the collision between great power competition and the energy transition, including such issues as energy security, energy technology competition, and climate policy in a divided world. In this context, he has engaged deeply in energy and climate issues in the Indo-Pacific region, especially U.S. relations with Japan and South Korea. His most recent project at EIRP is an assessment of Russia’s evolving role in the global energy system.
Image: Shutterstock.com.