Political violence has been increasing in the U.S. from the recent attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump to the 10-fold surge in threats against members of Congress in the past decade. And experts see serious risk of more incidents as the election nears.

Late last week, the Ash Center for Governance and Innovation convened a panel discussion on “Political Violence and the 2024 Presidential Election” to clarify what is happening in our country and suggest some possible solutions.

Moderator Erica Chenoweth, academic dean for faculty engagement and the Frank Stanton Professor of the First Amendment at the Harvard Kennedy School, opened the hourlong online event by asking the panelists to respond to the attack on Trump that left one audience member dead and two others wounded besides the former president.

“I was angry that gun violence had once again marred American life,” said Hardy Merriman, president of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict. “The premise of democracy is that we have this broad and beautiful and diverse country and we resolve our differences through institutions, through elections, through our judicial system, and through other systems,” continued the author of “Harnessing Our Power to End Political Violence (HOPE).”

Lilliana Mason, associate professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University, concurred. “I was holding my breath because what happens next is extremely consequential.”

Mason, co-author of “Radical American Partisanship: Mapping Violent Hostility, Its Causes, and the Consequences for Democracy” went on to explain: “Whether or not it is interpreted as a partisan event or ideological can really, really change how everyone experiences that act. I was very relieved to see that both Republican and Democratic leaders spoke out against violence, and it didn’t seem to be a partisan event. That allowed us to take a breath.”

Sarah Birch, professor of political science at King’s College, London, studies violence in emerging democracies, primarily in Africa. After the shooting, however, she “went to my electoral violence data set, and I discovered that electoral violence has increased quite a lot in the last 15 years in established democracies. This is something political scientists have not paid attention to — and this calls out for urgent attention.”

Her research suggests that “when it does happen is it is not orchestrated by political elites,” said Birch, the author of “Electoral Violence, Corruption, and Political Order.” “But the most interesting unanswered question is how the tenor of election campaigns … might contribute to electoral violence.”

Chenoweth noted an “overwhelming majority of Americans … categorically reject using violence to achieve domestic political ends under basically any circumstance,” citing poll numbers in the high 80 percent range. At the same time, “a number of recent polls suggest growing anxiety over political violence.”

But Mason, who has been collecting data on electoral violence since 2017, shared some worrisome trends: “We saw a spike in approval of violent threats around both of Trump’s impeachments, particularly among Republicans. When partisans feel that their groups are being threatened, they become more approving of violence.”

Throughout Trump’s administration such threats increased, she said. “During Biden’s admin, we saw them calming down.”

Although one recent poll, found that 10 percent of participants said “use of force is justified to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president,” and seven percent supported the use of force “to restore Trump to the presidency.”

Most threats, the panelists agreed, are simply designed to intimidate.

“In general, there are lots of people who threaten and never enact political violence, and there are some people who enact political violence and never threaten,” said Merriman. 

This makes sense, he explained: “If you were serious, why would you tip people off with threats?” 

He went on to cite CNN research done on threats that were serious enough that their perpetrators were subject to prosecution. That research revealed that less than 50 percent of those who made this most severe level of threat had plans to commit violence, which means that most threats are never going to be acted upon. 

Still, he said, “You don’t need that many acts of violence to make those threats credible.”

“A lot of it is intimidation and trying to disarm the other side,” agreed Birch. “Turnout tends to be lower [for elections] when people fear there might be violence.”

That, she explained, may be the point. “Preventing people from exercising their democratic rights can be an important objective of electoral violence. In that context, we do find women and people of other racial groups other than the dominant group are targeted because they may be seen as particularly vulnerable.”

Countering this atmosphere of violence is challenging. However, the panel did have suggestions.

“Most of our data shows it is very easy for leaders to reduce approval of violence,” said Mason. “All they have to do is say, ‘Don’t do that.’ We have the power to change America’s attitudes about violence as long as our leaders are willing to do the responsible thing and provide leadership that keeps our democracy functioning in a peaceful way.”

Merriman suggested a ground-up approach. “We have to begin to tell the story of incitement and to call them out,” he said. 

People must stand together in the face of intimidation and attempts to invoke fear, he said. “Those who oppose you might turn up the heat a bit before they realize that’s not going to be a viable strategy.” But they will back off.

“The goal is deterrence,” Merriman continued. “If we can change the psychology from one where those who are making or inciting violence think, ‘This always wins’ to ‘This is more likely to lose,’ we’re going to see a major change in threat trajectory and people feeling empowered.

“The key is solidarity.”

Get the best of the Gazette delivered to your inbox

By subscribing to this newsletter you’re agreeing to our privacy policy