Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

From Minnesota to Utah: A Deadly Pattern of Political Violence

Opinion

From Minnesota to Utah: A Deadly Pattern of Political Violence

American flag with big crack or bullet hole.

Getty Images/Stock Photo

We share in the grief over the weekend’s political violence that claimed the life of Rep. Hortman and her husband Mark, and our thoughts remain with Sen. Hoffman and his wife Yvette as they fight for their lives. This tragedy strikes at the heart of our democracy, threatening not just individual lives but the fundamental belief that people from different backgrounds can come together to solve problems peacefully.

The Minnesota shootings were not the only acts of political violence on June 14th. In Salt Lake City, gunfire shattered a peaceful "No Kings" protest, killing one demonstrator. In Austin, authorities evacuated the state Capitol under credible threats to lawmakers during another rally. In Culpeper, Virginia, a driver was arrested after driving into a crowd of protesters with his vehicle.


The pattern is unmistakable: Americans expressing their views—whether as elected officials or peaceful protesters—are being targeted with violence. This is not a partisan issue. It is a national emergency.

Over the years, The Fulcrum has covered the rise of political violence in America—from Charlottesville to the murder of George Floyd, from the January 6th attack on the Capitol to the 2024 assassination attempt on then-presidential candidate Donald Trump. The common thread in each of these tragedies is the abandonment of dialogue in favor of domination.

As Americans, we must stand united in rejecting violence as a tool of political expression. The overwhelming majority of Americans condemn political violence, and our leaders must reinforce this norm not just in words but through decisive action. Violence and intimidation must never become the cost of leadership. Elected office is public service, not a battlefield.

In times of crisis, leaders' words shape how communities respond. We echo the guidance we published last year in The Fulcrum’s piece, “How Leaders and the Media Talk About Political Violence Matters,” by Jennifer Dresden and Laura Livingston. Leadership—especially in moments like this—must model responsibility, restraint, and resolve. The principles they outlined then are no less vital today, and they guide our leadership of The Fulcrum. Condemnation is not enough. We must also ask:

  • Are leaders swiftly and unequivocally condemning violence?
  • Are they resisting the urge to vilify entire groups or dehumanize political opponents?
  • Are they guiding public anger toward constructive, democratic action?

This moment is a stress test for the nation’s moral compass. Will we allow fear and violence to shape our political future, or will we recommit to the democratic values that have sustained us through darker hours than this? Will we demand our leaders uphold words and actions that stand up to violence?

People often say that political violence is un-American. While it’s true that violence is woven throughout American history, it’s also true that the American identity has always been aspirational. The time to reach for better is now. Our democracy cannot survive if participation becomes a death sentence.

We call on Americans—citizens, leaders, and media alike—to turn this grief into a galvanizing moment. Let us protect protestors. Let us safeguard elected officials. Let us ensure that disagreement is met with dialogue, not gunfire.

As Barack Obama said, “We can disagree without being disagreeable.” And in the words of the late Sen. John McCain at the 2004 Republican National Convention: "We are Americans first, Americans last, Americans always. Let us argue our differences. But remember, we are not enemies."

For the victims in Minnesota, the murdered protester in Utah, and every citizen who either exercised their democratic rights on June 14th or stood in solidarity with those who did: we must do better. Democracy's future depends on the choices we make today.

David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Kristina Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and executive director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

SUGGESTION: Manhunt in Minnesota Following “Politically Motivated” Shootings

A vehicle belonging to Vance Boelter is towed from the alley behind his home on June 14, 2025 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Boelter is a suspect in the shooting of two Democratic-Farmer-Labor lawmakers. (Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)


Read More

The Knicks and the Practice of Us

Jalen Brunson #11 of the New York Knicks celebrates with the Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy during the New York Knicks Championship ticker tape parade and victory rally celebrating winning the 2026 NBA Finals on June 18, 2026 in New York City.

(Photo by Angelina Katsanis/Getty Images)

The Knicks and the Practice of Us

I didn’t grow up anywhere near Madison Square Garden. My childhood unfolded in the Midwest, far from New York’s tangled boroughs and yellow cabs. My father brought the city with him, tucked in the vowels of his accent and the teams he rooted for. He was a Jersey boy at first. Then, a reluctant Midwesterner. Geography, though, never truly loosened its grip. In our house, sports allegiance wasn’t a choice. It was inherited—an expectation passed like a family recipe. Or a story retold until it blurs into fact.

For my father, and then for me, the Knicks were never just a team. They were a test of endurance. Before I could distinguish a pick-and-roll from a triangle offense, I understood Knicks loyalty: you waited. You hoped in public, persisted when heartbreak was routine. Knicks fandom was boot camp for disappointment. The main skill was getting up after being knocked down.

Keep ReadingShow less
Reclaiming Patriotism: Between Nationalism and Pessimism

People gather over a giant Declaration of Independence

Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images.

Reclaiming Patriotism: Between Nationalism and Pessimism

As America approaches the 250th anniversary of its independence, I am more in the mood to protest than to celebrate. Does that make me unpatriotic? The answer depends on how we understand “patriotism.” For a nation that is founded in revolution, let’s affirm a deeper and more profound love of country, a civic patriotism celebrative of our larger ideals including pluralism, dissent, and a commitment to social change.

Two Types of Patriotism

Keep ReadingShow less
A New Path to Depolarization: Media That Brings Us Together
Political polarization
Polarization and the politics of love

A New Path to Depolarization: Media That Brings Us Together

As we face ever-growing partisan polarization in American society, the need for large-scale action becomes increasingly urgent. As James Coan and I have written about in the Fulcrum during my time at More Like US, there are approaches grounded in a significant body of social psychological research that can help address this rapidly growing problem, namely different variations of social contact theory, especially vicarious contact. Until recently, much of the research and thus much of the basis for our articles has been focused on applying social contact theory to other problems facing society: prejudice against members of the LGBTQ community, individuals with autism, and immigrant schoolchildren, among other examples.

It was therefore exciting when last fall I saw the publication of an article in Political Science Research and Methods titled "Content That's as Good as Contact?: Vicarious Intergroup Contact and the Promise of Depolarization at Scale." The study, conducted in 2022 in conjunction with YouGov, finally attempted to measure the effectiveness of indirect contact as a path to depolarization, primarily through the vicarious experience of productive political conversation. Encompassing over 2,000 participants gathered from a nationally representative sample recruited by YouGov’s online panel, the study looked to test affective polarization, measured attitudinally, and interest and investment in depolarization, measured behaviorally. To this end, the study tested multiple media interventions, namely a 50-minute Braver Angels documentary featuring a “Red-Blue” depolarization workshop; a 50-minute placebo nature documentary about wildebeest migration; a 5-minute version of the Braver Angels documentary; a second 5-minute version that emphasized partisan misperception correction; and a pure control group, with no treatment.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Red and Blue America Can Stay Together by Pulling Apart

United States Marine Corps Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II STOVL stealth multirole fighters belonging to the VMFA-121 "Green Knights" taxiing at the MCAS Iwakuni in Yamaguchi, Japan, on March 23, 2017.

(viper-zero / Getty Images)

How Red and Blue America Can Stay Together by Pulling Apart

In earlier essays, I argued that America’s political division has grown so deep that a peaceful “American Union” of two sovereign nations — one broadly red, one broadly blue — is worth considering. I also argued that relocation fears are overstated, that cooperation could increase economic prosperity, and that separation could help heal the lingering wounds of the Civil War.

But how would this all actually work? What happens to the national debt? Who gets the military bases, federal lands, and nuclear weapons? Will Social Security be protected? Could two nations share the dollar, defend themselves together, and resolve their disagreements?

Keep ReadingShow less