The US experienced yet another harsh event in its extremely fragmented politics after Donald Trump was shot at a protest in Pennsylvania on July 13, 2024. Former President Trump, who’s about to formally became the GOP nominee for president in the 2024 election, survived the attempted assassination when, preliminary information said, a shot grazed his ears. However, one protest visitor was killed, more were hurt, and the suspected shooter is likewise lifeless. The Conversation’s elections writer, Naomi Schalit, spoke with University of Massachusetts, Lowell, professor Arie Perliger after the celebration. Through his investigation of executions and democratic violence, Perliger provided insights. Perliger argued that it should n’t surprise people to eventually engage in violence given the extreme political polarization in the US.
Schalit: When you heard the news, what was the first item you thought?
Perliger: First things considered when I first thought about how far we could possibly go without having a civil conflict. I believe that if Donald Trump had suffered fatal accidents now, the level of crime that we have seen so far will be insignificant in comparison to what would have transpired in the next few months. I think that would have unleashed a new level of anger, frustration, resentment, hostility that we have n’t seen for many, many years in the US.
This death effort may at least at this early period confirm a strong feeling among some Trump supporters and some people on the far right that they are being delegitimized, that they are on the defensive, and that there are attempts to essentially stop them from competing in the democratic process and stop Trump from winning back the White House.
For many of the individuals on the far right, what we just saw fit quite properly into a tale they’ve already been creating and spreading over the past few decades.
Political assassination attempts do n’t just aim to kill people. They have a larger goal, do n’t they?
Assassination attempts are often omitted from the lengthy process of trying to downgrade and defeat political foes when it is obvious that even a protracted political struggle wo n’t suffice. Many assassins see assassinations as a tool that will allow them to accomplish their political goals in a very quick, very effective way that does n’t require a lot of time or organization. If we’re trying to connect it to what we’ve seen today, I believe that many people view Trump as a fairy, as a special person who, in many ways, actually suffocated the liberal motion. But by removing him, there’s a feeling that that will or does solve the problem.
I believe that since Trump’s election in 2016, the conservative movement has experienced significant change, and many of its traits are now very well-known in various conservative movements. So even if Trump decides to retire at some point, I do n’t believe that Trumpism as a set of populist ideas will vanish from the GOP. However, I fully understand why those who view that as a threat believe that removing Trump will address all the issues.
You argued in a study of the causes and effects of social assassination that political competition has the ability to stoke further violence, including the killing of political figures, unless political processes may address” the most powerful political grievances.” Is that what you saw in this intended death?
Democracy may work if the various parties, the various motions, are not willing to work together on some problems. Politics is effective when several organizations are willing to come to terms in some way through negotiations, collaboration, and cooperation.
The worst aspect of this fragmentation is that we are forcing out any officials and politicians who are interested in cooperating with the other area. It has happened in the last 17 decades, essentially since 2008 and the increase of the Tea Party movement. That’s one point. Second, people delegitimize officials who are willing to work with the opposing area, making them known as those who have violated their principles and democratic party.
Thirdly, people are delegitimizing their social adversaries. They turn a social conflict into a conflict where everyone can work together to solve the issues they both see facing the country.
When you combine those three relationships, you create generally a destructive program where both flanks are convinced that it’s a zero-sum sport, that it’s the end of the country. If one side prevails, politics is at its end.
If both parties repeatedly remind people that losing an election is the end of the world, it should n’t come as a surprise that eventually people are willing to follow the law into their own hands and use force.
Arie Perliger, Director of Security Studies and Professor of Criminology and Justice Studies, UMass Lowell
This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original post.