Assassination and the American Presidency: What History Tells Us

Shockwaves caused by the near-assassination of Donald Trump last Saturday have led to a chorus of condemnation of this heinous act. The two presidential candidates, their political campaigns, our nation’s other political leaders, and the editorial pages of the major press have been unanimous in insisting that however deep the divisions among us, differences should be settled at the ballot box—not with bullets.

Biden, Trump, and leaders from all sectors of our society have also been unanimous in asserting: this is not us. On Sunday, Donald Trump posted: “UNITE AMERICA.” In his statement to the nation that night, President Biden declared: “There is no place in America for this kind of violence.  Period.” 

As we now attempt to make this aspiration a reality, we cannot avoid an ugly but undeniable brute fact: what happened in Butler, Pennsylvania last week was not abnormal. Over the course of our nation’s history, assassination has been a recurring, indelible strand in our presidential politics.

Of the 45 men who have served as President of the United States, how many have been targets of serious assassination attempts that nearly ended their lives? Twelve: 27%. Four died from gunshots. Eight survived near misses, most notably Teddy Roosevelt, who after having been shot in the chest insisted on finishing his campaign speech before going to the hospital.

In addition to these 12, four other presidencies were shaped by assassinations of presidents or presidential candidates.  Lincoln’s successor, Andrew Johnson, lacked his political deftness and convictions about justice for the millions of freed slaves. Thus plans for post-Civil War Reconstruction fizzled.  Following John F. Kennedy’s assassination, Lyndon Johnson made the fateful choice to “Americanize” the war in Vietnam. By 1968, 500,000 American troops were bogged down in that distant jungle. Opposition to the war became so intense that LBJ could not hold campaign rallies; riots in Black communities saw thousands of American troops dispatched to Los Angeles, Detroit, and Newark. When these conditions were further inflamed by the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy, Richard Nixon won a landslide victory on a platform of “law and order.”

Therefore what?

First, no one knows what will happen in the coming months. But we must recognize that the attempted assassination of Trump on July 13 is unlikely to be the last violent incident in the 109 days before November 5—whether by another deranged loner or some avenger.

Second, heightened risks demand much better performance than we saw from our government last week. Extraordinary risks require extra-ordinary vigilance and extra-ordinary preventive actions. The Director of the Secret Service and her agency demonstrably failed. To cite just one instance, where were the drones? The “eyes in the sky” used by many local law enforcement agencies would have identified a shooter climbing onto a roof a football field away from the podium and setting up his AR-15 assault rifle. Director Kimberly Cheatle and the others responsible for Trump’s security last week should be summarily fired. The most competent counter-terrorist experts in our government work not for the Secret Service but for the Defense Department and intelligence community. They should immediately review the agency’s current capabilities and procedures and do whatever is necessary to ensure significantly safer security for both presidential candidates going forward.

Third, taking into account the possibility that one or both candidates could find themselves in a shooter’s crosshairs in the next 109 days, both campaigns should review and revise campaign plans—and make substantial adjustments to limit risks. These should include moving to more defensible venues, limiting direct access to candidates, and other alterations that both candidates will resist.  Those attending events at which the candidates are present should also be more tolerant of more intrusive and time-consuming security measures required.

Finally, both Biden and Trump have called for lowering the heat and toning down the rhetoric in the campaign. One does not have to agree with JD Vance’s tweet claiming that the Biden campaign’s rhetoric “led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination” to acknowledge the fact that rhetoric can incite violence.  As advertisers, pundits, and advocates of all causes know, by framing issues, assembling evidence (or claims), and making arguments, they shape what people think. And what individuals think informs what they do. At this point, both campaigns have identified the other candidate as an “existential” threat to the nation. If someone or something actually poses a threat to the existence of what one holds sacred, then what is he justified in doing to protect it? Conversely, could two candidates who really appear to believe that their opponent poses a mortal threat to our democracy agree on some boundaries to constrain their campaigns?

For the sake of the country, we should all hope that they can and will.

About the Author: Dr. Graham Allison, Harvard University 

Dr. Graham Allison is the Douglas Dillon Professor of Government at Harvard University, where he has taught for five decades. Allison is a leading analyst of national security with special interests in nuclear weapons, Russia, China, and decision-making. Allison was the “Founding Dean” of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, and until 2017, served as Director of its Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs which is ranked the “#1 University Affiliated Think Tank” in the world. 

All images are from Shutterstock.