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

High School Civic Innovators Bridging America’s Divide

At just 17 years of age, Sophie Kim was motivated to start her organization, Bipartisan Bridges, to bring together people from both ends of the political spectrum. What started as just an idea during her freshman year of high school took off after Sophie placed in the Civics Unplugged pitch contest, hosted for alumni in Spring 2024. Since then, Sophie has continued to expand Bipartisan Bridges' impact, creating spaces that foster civil dialogue and facilitate meaningful connections across party lines.

Sophie, a graduate of the Spring 2024 Civic Innovators Fellowship and the Summer 2025 Civic Innovation Academy at UCLA, serves as the founder and executive director of Bipartisan Bridges. In this role, Sophie has forged a partnership with the organization Braver Angels to host depolarization workshops and has led the coordination and capture of conversations on climate change, abortion, gun control, foreign aid, and the 100 Men vs. a Gorilla debate. In addition, this year, Sophie planned and oversaw Bipartisan Bridges’ flagship Politics and Polarization Fellowship, an eight-week, in-person program involving youth from Tustin, Irvine, Costa Mesa, and Huntington Beach, California. A recent Bipartisan Bridges session featuring youth from both Los Angeles and Orange County will be featured in Bridging the Gap, an upcoming documentary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two speech bubbles overlapping each other.

Democrats can reclaim America’s founding principles, rebuild the rural economy, and restore democracy by redefining the political battle Trump began.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

Defining the Democrat v. Republican Battle

Winning elections is, in large part, a question of which Party is able to define the battle and define the actors. Trump has so far defined the battle and effectively defined Democrats for his supporters as the enemy of making America great again.

For Democrats to win the 2026 midterm and 2028 presidential elections, they must take the offensive and show just the opposite–that it is they who are true to core American principles and they who will make America great again, while Trump is the Founders' nightmare come alive.

Keep ReadingShow less
Mirror, Mirror On the Wall, Who's the Most Patriotic of All?

Trump and the MAGA movement have twisted the meaning of patriotism. It’s time we collectively reclaim America’s founding ideals and the Pledge’s promise.

Getty Images, LeoPatrizi

Mirror, Mirror On the Wall, Who's the Most Patriotic of All?

Republicans have always claimed to be the patriotic party, the party of "America, right or wrong," the party willing to use force to protect American national interests abroad, the party of a strong military. In response, Democrats have not really contested this perspective since Vietnam, basically ceding the patriotic badge to the Republicans.

But with the advent of Donald Trump, the Republican claim to patriotism has gotten broader and more troubling. Republicans now claim to be the party that is true to our founding principles. And it is not just the politicians; they have support from far-right scholars at the Heritage Foundation, such as Matthew Spalding. The Democratic Party has done nothing to counter these claims.

Keep ReadingShow less
Communication concept with multi colored abstract people icons.

Research shows that emotional, cognitive, and social mechanisms drive both direct and indirect contact, offering scalable ways to reduce political polarization.

Getty Images, Eoneren

“Direct” and “Indirect” Contact Methods Likely Work in Similar Ways, so They Should Both Be Effective

In a previous article, we argued that efforts to improve the political environment should reach Americans as media consumers, in addition to seeking public participation. Reaching Americans as media consumers uses media like film, TV, and social media to change what Americans see and hear about fellow Americans across the political spectrum. Participant-based efforts include dialogues and community-based activities that require active involvement.

In this article, we show that the mechanisms underlying each type of approach are quite similar. The categories of mechanisms we cover are emotional, cognitive, relational, and repetitive. We use the terms from the academic literature, “direct” and “indirect” contact, which are fairly similar to participant and media consumer approaches, respectively.

Keep ReadingShow less