The Escalation of Political Violence in America
By A. Piratemonk
In the spring of 2020, as Michigan grappled with the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, a chilling scene unfolded in Lansing. Armed protesters, some clad in tactical gear, stormed the state Capitol, their rifles slung over their shoulders as they loomed over legislators attempting to conduct the state’s business. A viral photograph captured one agitator screaming in the face of masked state police officers, his rage palpable. One of his confederates later explained their presence to reporters: “The message here that I had: Violence will happen and it will happen in two weeks when people literally don’t have any food … You’re gonna rub people the wrong way. There will be violence.” This moment, a prelude to the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, was not an isolated incident but a harbinger of a growing wave of political violence emanating from America’s red states, where rhetoric and action are increasingly intertwined in a dangerous dance.
The American Prospect’s recent article, “The Political Violence Spilling Out of Red States,” argues that this surge in intimidation and violence is not merely a byproduct of heated political discourse but a deliberate strategy by elements within red America to impose their vision on the nation. Authored by Jon D. Michaels and David Noll, professors of law at UCLA and Rutgers, respectively, and co-authors of Vigilante Nation: How State-Sponsored Terror Threatens Our Democracy, the piece paints a stark picture of a country where ideological divides are deepening, and the tools of intimidation—rallies, militias, and targeted harassment—are becoming normalized. This story delves into the roots of this phenomenon, its manifestations, and the urgent need for a response, drawing on a wealth of evidence from recent events and expert analyses.
The Anatomy of a Growing Threat
The 2020 election cycle marked a turning point in the visibility of political violence in the United States. In the wake of former President Donald Trump’s claims of a stolen election, pro-Trump mobs descended on polling sites and tabulation centers in states like Arizona, where election officials faced unprecedented threats. A May 2024 survey by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law found that 38 percent of local election officials reported experiencing threats, harassment, or abuse, with 54 percent expressing concern for the safety of their colleagues and 28 percent worried about their families. In Maricopa County, Arizona, the response has been to fortify election infrastructure: uncounted ballots are now stored in chain-link “cages,” CCTV cameras monitor tabulation centers, and a SWAT team stands guard at the main facility.
This fortress-like environment is a stark departure from the open, democratic process Americans once took for granted. The Brennan Center’s findings underscore a broader trend: political violence is no longer confined to fringe groups but is seeping into the mainstream, particularly in red states where partisan rhetoric often amplifies grievances. The American Prospect article highlights how this violence is not random but strategic, aimed at reshaping the political landscape through fear.
The January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol remains the most vivid example of this trend. Fueled by Trump’s rhetoric and organized by groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, the insurrection was a coordinated effort to disrupt the certification of the 2020 election. A Senate report later revealed that the FBI and Department of Homeland Security had ignored a “massive amount” of intelligence warning of the impending violence. Since then, the threat has not subsided but evolved. A 2024 report from Reuters documented at least 300 cases of political violence since January 6, including 51 incidents in 2024 alone. These range from assaults on election workers to violent attacks on individuals displaying political signs, such as an 81-year-old man in Michigan run over for supporting Trump.
Red States as Incubators of Vigilantism
The American Prospect article argues that red states are not just passive backdrops for this violence but active incubators. Republican-controlled state legislatures have increasingly wielded their authority to push policies that align with a conservative vision, often accompanied by rhetoric that demonizes opponents. This dynamic was evident in the 2020 Michigan protests, where armed militias rallied against Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s lockdown measures, egged on by Trump’s call to “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!” The protests culminated in a foiled plot to kidnap and execute Whitmer, a scheme hatched by members of a militia group who saw themselves as defenders of “freedom” against perceived tyranny.
This pattern of state-sanctioned or state-tolerated vigilantism is not new. The American Prospect draws parallels to the pre-Civil War era, when slaveholding states used militias to enforce fugitive slave laws, often clashing with free states that resisted. Today’s equivalent can be seen in actions like Texas’s decision to bus undocumented migrants to blue-state cities, a move that scholars like Jack Balkin describe as “constitutional hardball”—legal but aggressive tactics that push the boundaries of political norms. Such policies, the article argues, embolden vigilante groups to take matters into their own hands, as seen in the proliferation of armed “poll watchers” in states like Arizona, where groups like True the Vote have spread baseless claims of voter fraud.
The 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, serves as a cautionary tale. Right-wing militias, heavily armed and organized, overwhelmed local law enforcement, leading to a deadly clash that left one counterprotester dead. Then-Governor Terry McAuliffe later admitted that the militias “had better equipment than our state police.” Open-carry laws, prevalent in many red states, complicate efforts to disarm such groups, but the authors argue that blue states could counter this by enforcing little-used laws banning private militias and empowering state police to break up mobs.
The Role of Rhetoric and Polarization
At the heart of this surge in violence is a toxic brew of rhetoric and polarization. Former President Trump’s language—calling political opponents “the enemy within” or joking about violent acts like the hammer attack on Paul Pelosi—has normalized a discourse that paints dissent as treasonous. A 2023 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) found that 23 percent of Americans, and 33 percent of Republicans, believe that “true American patriots may have to resort to violence to save our country,” a significant increase from 15 percent in 2021. This sentiment is particularly pronounced among Trump supporters, with 27 percent of Trump-favoring Republicans endorsing violence if the 2024 election is perceived as “compromised.”
Social media amplifies this rhetoric, creating echo chambers where conspiracy theories like QAnon and “Stop the Steal” thrive. Jacob Ware, a research fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, notes that these narratives are no longer confined to the fringes but are “infiltrating American society on a massive scale.” The controversy in Springfield, Ohio, where right-wing influencers and the Trump campaign amplified false claims about Haitian immigrants, illustrates how quickly misinformation can inflame local tensions and lead to real-world consequences, including bomb threats and harassment.
Yet, the threat is not one-sided. While far-right groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers dominate discussions of political violence, left-leaning extremists, such as anarchists and anti-fascists, have also contributed to the rise in incidents, accounting for 40 percent of domestic terrorism attacks in 2021, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. This growing polarization, where both sides view the other as an existential threat, has created a climate where violence is increasingly seen as a legitimate tool. Nealin Parker of Common Ground USA warns that “incidents of violence can metastasize into something bigger” in this atmosphere of mistrust.
The Response: Blue States and Civil Society Push Back
The American Prospect article calls for a robust response, particularly from blue states, which it argues have a duty to protect their residents and support those in red states facing authoritarian policies. Legal scholars like Michaels and Noll suggest that blue states could establish specialized units within their attorneys general offices to monitor and counter organized threats, leveraging existing laws to curb vigilante activity. Meanwhile, civil society groups are quietly working to prevent election-related violence, focusing on community resilience and de-escalation. The Democracy Fund, for instance, has provided grants to organizations studying political violence and enhancing digital and physical security for at-risk groups like the LGBTQ community and immigrant advocates.
However, these efforts face challenges. Many organizations prefer to work discreetly to avoid undermining their credibility with their constituencies, and some philanthropies are reluctant to speak publicly about their funding due to fears of retaliation, particularly if Trump were to win in 2024. Moreover, the decentralized nature of the threat—lone actors, small militias, and online radicalization—makes it difficult to predict and prevent. Javed Ali, a former FBI counterterrorism official, notes that lone attackers, often radicalized by online rhetoric, pose a greater risk than coordinated mass violence like January 6.
Law enforcement has made strides since 2020, with nearly 1,000 individuals charged in connection to January 6 and groups like the Proud Boys facing significant scrutiny. Yet, experts like Kurt Braddock of American University warn that the failure to consistently address right-wing violence before January 6 has emboldened perpetrators, who often see tacit approval from political leaders who downplay or dismiss their actions.
A Path Forward
The 2024 election cycle, now behind us, did not devolve into the widespread violence many feared, a testament to improved law enforcement vigilance and community efforts to promote nonviolence. Yet, the risks remain. Bomb threats and swatting attempts targeting members of Congress and appointees have continued post-election, and credible threats against lawmakers have risen from 900 in 2016 to over 8,000 in 2023. The American Prospect article warns that without a concerted effort to address the root causes—polarization, inflammatory rhetoric, and state-sanctioned vigilantism—these incidents will only grow.
Rebuilding trust is critical. John S. Hollywood of RAND argues that transparency in governance and a moratorium on threatening rhetoric from political leaders are essential first steps. Civil society initiatives, like those led by Common Ground USA and States at the Core, aim to bridge divides through dialogue and community engagement, but their success depends on broader political will. For blue states, the challenge is to balance protecting their residents with supporting those in red states without escalating interstate tensions, a delicate task in a federalist system already strained by partisan conflict.
As the United States navigates this turbulent period, the lessons of history loom large. The pre-Civil War era showed how unchecked aggression between states could spiral into catastrophe. Today, the stakes are no less high. The normalization of political violence threatens not only individual safety but the very fabric of American democracy. As Michaels and Noll argue, the response must be as bold as the threat itself: a commitment to countering vigilantism, fostering dialogue, and rebuilding a shared sense of civic trust before the next election cycle reignites the cycle of fear and retribution.
Comments