Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The language of violence

American flag hanging amid spotlights

The FBI, ATF and other law enforcement agencies work at the crime scene where a gunman attempted to assassinate former President Donald Trump on July 13.

Kyle Mazza/Anadolu via Getty Images

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.”

Real violence erupted at a presidential campaign rally on Saturday night. Rare though it was, it was still a sickening sight.

Tragically, metaphorical violence as part of campaign speeches is not at all rare. Democrats and Republicans — Biden and Trump, Harris and Haley, DeSantis and Kennedy, you name it — throw around allusions to violence as if we are currently engaged in some domestic incursion.


How often have we heard presidential candidates exclaim, “We are fighting for the soul of America” or battling “the opposition’s assault on democracy”? How frequently have our leaders implored us to “wage war against the foes of women’s freedom” or in defense of “the innocent life of an unborn child”? Of course, my favorite metaphor du jour is the “weaponization” of institutions and actions. Republicans talk of the weaponization of America’s legal system and of the left’s “woke” principles, while Democrats talk of the weaponization of impeachment efforts and family laptops. It has to stop.

The language of violence is not new to American politics. But it has taken on heightened consequences because of our current polarized state. Leaders on both sides of the aisle (along with the media) are simply too nonchalant about encouraging their followers to “fight, fight, fight.” The world feels somehow different today than when Ronald Reagan would occasionally invoke the battle metaphor (remember the “war on drugs”?) or when Bill Clinton wouldreference the “fight for farmers and the fight for accessible health care.”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Survey after survey shows that Americans are exhausted. The constant exposure to political intransigence and partisan bickering has drained our emotional reserves. It has also damaged Americans' faith in the government, their confidence in its leaders and our general sense of national pride.

Make no mistake: There should be no blaming the victim here. What happened to Donald Trump in Butler, Pa., is tragic and indefensible. A chorus of lawmakers past and present have condemned the actions of this apparently lone gunman. Many have echoed President Joe Biden’s sentiment that “there is no place in America for this kind of violence.” Agreed. But, equally, there should be no place in American politics for the sort of violent language that so easily passes the lips of those in power.

My plea to politicians on both the left and the right is to erase the violent vernacular from your messaging. Talk of restoring America to a progressive vision or a conservative ideal, not of destroying the opposite party. Speak of rebuilding the country to its rightful standing as the paragon of liberty, freedom, equality and justice, not of razing all policies initiated by representatives from across the aisle. Instead of the impulse to vilify, tell of your plans for renewal and rebirth, as Lincoln did. And FDR, and Johnson, and Reagan, and Obama.

Americans are fortunate. We inhabit a polity where liberty is valued above all else. The First Amendment to the Constitution safeguards these candidates and their messages. It should. Their remarks are rightly recognized as political speech, the loftiest and most revered variety of free expression. But as with all protected speech, the freedom to express oneself is not equivalent to the moral necessity to say anything that comes to mind. In other words, because some messages are protected does not mean they should be uttered. This is not a case of “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.” Surely, we can still get our most complex, nuanced and inspirational points across with a far less violent tone.

Democrats and Republicans alike should come together in prayer for Donald Trump’s swift and full recovery. Once that’s assured, we should renew the campaign for the presidency. Let it be vigorous, spirited, courageous and ardent. But, please, please let it also be rhetorically peaceful.

Read More

Flag of Ukraine alongside flag of United States

Flags of Ukraine and the United States

Alex Wong/Getty Images

In swing states, D’s and R’s agree U.S. should continue aid to Ukraine

Amid debates about U.S. international engagement, a new public consultation survey conducted in six swing states by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation found widespread bipartisan support for the United States continuing to provide military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine.

Majorities of both Republicans and Democrats support the U.S. upholding the principle of collective security by helping to protect nations that are under attack; continuing to be a member of NATO; and continuing to abide by the longstanding international ban on nuclear testing.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red and blue fingers pointing at each other
PM Images/Getty Images

Maybe America needs a mom to call a time out

Klug served in the House of Representatives from 1991 to 1999. He hosts the political podcast “Lost in the Middle: America’s Political Orphans.”

All of us have had that moment. An innocent comment over coffee with a friend, at a family dinner or while riding an elevator with a coworker. Everyone is at edge over politics. Nerves are rubbed raw. Civility has seemingly vanished.

When asked to rate the level of political division in the country on a scale of 0-100, where 0 is no division and 100 is the edge of a civil war, the mean response is 71, according to the Georgetown University Institute of Public Service. A similar share of Americans tell Pew they worry about political disagreements triggering more violence.

Keep ReadingShow less
Ben Klutsey

Our views on the issues haven't changed that much over the past several decades. If anything, we’ve moved a little bit closer to each other. But the way we feel about each other has changed over time," said Ben Klutsey, director of the program on pluralism and civil exchange at the Mercatus Center.

Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation

‘A truly pluralistic society has both inclusion and dissent’: A conversation with Ben Klutsey

Berman is a distinguished fellow of practice at The Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, co-editor of Vital City, and co-author of "Gradual: The Case for Incremental Change in a Radical Age." This is the sixth in a series of interviews titled "The Polarization Project."

The documentary film “Undivide Us” brings together Americans from across the political spectrum for conversations about abortion, immigration, guns and other controversial issues. According to Ben Klutsey, who helped facilitate the conversations, “Participants came in expecting shouting matches, but they ended up exchanging phone numbers and wanting to stay connected because they found each other to be incredibly interesting. People are not as polarized as we think they are when we look at our screens and social media.”

This could also serve as a mission statement for Klutsey, who directs the program on pluralism and civil exchange at the Mercatus Center, a libertarian research center housed at George Mason University. At Mercatus, Klutsey is attempting to build a community of students and scholars who can exchange ideas and coexist with one another peacefully despite their political differences. Klutsey also regularly interviews leading thinkers about liberalism for the online journal Discourse.

Keep ReadingShow less
Homeless encampment

Views on how to deal with the homeless encampments that have cropped up across California in recent years, such as this one in Los Angeles in July, don’t fall neatly along party lines.

Qian Weizhong/VCG via Getty Images

Local elections are less partisan because voters will cross party lines when issues hit close to home

Lascher is a professor of public policy and administration at California State University, Sacramento. Adams is a professor of political science at San Diego State University. Martin is an associate professor of political science at California State University, Sacramento.

Hand-wringing over American politics commonly focuses on the sharp and growing divisions between Democrats and Republicans.

Accumulating evidence indicates that voters are less likely than ever to split their ticket or vote for candidates from different parties in presidential or congressional races. Polarization over hot-button issues has spiked, as has animosity toward members of the opposite party.

Research also shows that state-level political contests have become more partisan. Results for state-level electoral contests more closely mirror presidential election results than they once did.

Keep ReadingShow less
Andrew Yang

The Forward Party, founded by Andrew Yang, "will greatly increase the overall health of our democracy while helping to put the power back into the hands of voters," writes Copenhaver.

Marco Bello/Getty Images

Identifying division is easy; finding points of agreement is difficult

Copenhaver, a former mayor of Augusta, Ga., hosts “The Changemaker Podcast and is a founding partner of Starts With Us.

Negative campaigning is increasing in volume and nastiness every election cycle. Campaigns are based on a “divide and conquer” strategy, pitting citizens against each other. If you ask most political operatives why this is the case, they’ll tell you it’s because it works. It drives donations, volunteer engagement and turnout. And while I won’t debate that it works, it’s not the only approach that works.

Keep ReadingShow less