Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

It's time for a campaign to turn the tide of political violence

People watching a TV

People watch news coverage of the attempted assassination of Donald Trump.

Beata Zawrzel/NurPhoto via Getty Image

Merloe is a member of the Election Reformers Network Advisory Council and provides strategic advice on democracy and elections in the U.S. and internationally.

The United States is not alone in suffering political violence — nor is the despicable attempted assassination of Donald Trump the sole such incident in modern American history. The outpouring of prayers and calls to tone down rhetoric are laudable, but they are not enough to change the current political dynamics. Succumbing to a sense of futility and disengaging from politics will only make things worse.

We need something big, loud, positive and continuous to break through political negativity. The rising tide in support of political violence must be confronted by a strong public outcry against it.


Civic, religious, sports, entertainment, business and political leaders must step up. It is time for an all-out campaign for peaceful politics in America. Concerts for peaceful politics (national, like Live Aid, and local) and support by superstars of all sports and entertainment genres and by business leaders — individually and jointly — are required, as are inter-religious messaging for peaceful politics. Which companies will include peaceful politics in their ads? Who will do TikTok posts for it? And dare we imagine even the sports internet and the Zynternet embracing peaceful politics?

And, every one of us has the responsibility to engage in such messaging in our personal and digital worlds, including editorial board members, media personalities and influencers.

Such efforts positively affected countries in Africa, the Balkans and Latin America where political violence took horrific tolls and/or was threatening peaceful democratic political processes. Building pressure for peace adds incentives for parties and candidates to moderate and call on their supporters to eschew violence.

Candidate and political party anti-violence pledges are often a focus of attention. They are most effective when included in a broader public campaign to mobilize demand for peaceful politics. Voluntary anti-violence pledges can be particularly effectual where: the pledge is sponsored by an authoritative convening body or coalition that the political antagonists find difficult to refuse; the pledge requires the candidates to make regular public calls for supporters to eschew violence; supporter training repeats the pledge; and the accord includes a monitoring body to call for accountability should political violence occur.

Ghana’s current anti-political violence initiative is led by the highly influential National Peace Council. It includes a party code of conduct against vigilantism and electoral violence, with a commission to address violations of the pledge. The NPC and others are conducting a “national peace crusade” for the December 2024 elections. Such peace campaigns played important roles in mitigating political violence in Ghana’s past elections They provide just one positive country example.

There are current examples to draw upon in this country as well, including legislative enactments such as Utah’s voluntary “pledge of fair campaign practices.” Plus, there are calls like the multi-organization effort around the Candidate Principles for Trusted Elections, co-led by The Carter Center and the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation with complementary efforts by others, such as Team Democracy, which includes former U.S. military leaders. Such initiatives rightfully embrace anti-violence principles as part of broader election campaign ethics, because peaceful politics requires more than renouncing violence.

Peaceful politics extends beyond elections. It is part of a country’s political culture, which in America is trending toward greater anticipation and even acceptance of political violence. Studies show approximately 20 percent of the population see it as acceptable and approximately 60 percent do if the other party commits political violence first, which is up 20 percent from four years ago. Confronting and curtailing that tide requires demanding a shift in culture with action on numerous fronts.

A vigorous campaign for peaceful politics in America over the next several months can avert the damage to democracy and the decades of repair that politics by violence brings. It can also provide an antidote to political negativity. We will need to project its message in various forms to detoxify our political environment in the longer run.


Read More

What the World Cup Teaches Us About Democracy

Charles De Ketelaere #17 of Belgium scores his team’s first goal past Unai Simon #23 of Spain during the FIFA World Cup 2026 Quarter Final match between Spain and Belgium at Los Angeles Stadium on July 10, 2026, in Inglewood, California.

(Photo by David Ramos/Getty Images)

What the World Cup Teaches Us About Democracy

As live sporting events go, nothing comes close to the World Cup. I was in the stands when South Africa, my birth country, hosted the event in 2010 after decades of exclusion from global athletics. In June of this year, I had a full-circle moment when South Africa played in the knockout rounds for the first time, and I stood with my two American sons, arms around them, singing South Africa's anthem — the only national anthem that weaves multiple languages into a single, unifying song. Later in the week, I was in the stands again, cheering Spain's win over Austria, a country to which my only connections are a brief holiday…and the fact that my mother's family fled from there during the Inquisition.

The magic of the World Cup is that everyone in the stands wears the flags and shirts of countries that are “theirs” in some way. For some, it’s where they were born; for others, where they live or where their ancestors hailed from. For some, it is simply a country they have adopted for the afternoon. It is impossible to know how deep a person’s connection runs simply by looking at them. And next to a person waving one team’s colors is a stranger, family member, or close friend supporting the opposing team—or wearing the jersey of a team that isn’t playing that day at all.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Former President Joe Biden, former President Barack Obama, former President George W. Bush, and former President Bill Clinton pose together.

Former President Joe Biden, former President Barack Obama, former President George W. Bush, and former President Bill Clinton pose ahead of the dedication ceremony for the opening of the Barack Obama Presidential Center, in John Lewis Plaza, on June 18, 2026, in Chicago, Illinois.

Pablo Martinez Monsivais - Pool / Getty Images

America Shouldn't Need a Political Savior to Hold It Together

America is waiting for a political savior, but the problem is structural.

This dynamic was illustrated during two recent broadcast appearances by journalist Katy Tur. Discussing modern secessionist movements on June 15, 2026, Tur found optimism in a poll showing 54 percent of Americans still believe we share core values, and she later expressed hope that future leaders could reunite the country.

Keep ReadingShow less
Constitution of the United State with the U.S. flag in the background.

The Framers designed a republic with the intention to manage factionalism through deliberate compromise and institutional guardrails, whereas 21st-century polarization often treats compromise as a moral failing.

Douglas Sacha, Getty Images

Our Framers on 21st Century Primaries and Polarization

The Framers would view 21st-century closed primaries and political polarization as the exact manifestation of "factionalism" they spent the 1787 Constitutional Convention trying to prevent. They would argue these systems force candidates to appeal to ideological extremes rather than the broad, moderate consensus required for stable governance.

The Danger of Factionalism: In Federalist No. 10, James Madison defined a "faction" as a group of citizens united by a passion or interest adverse to the rights of others. He argued that while factions are inevitable, their effects must be controlled. The Framers would recognize 21st-century hyper-polarization as the dominance of unyielding factions that prioritize absolute ideological purity over democratic compromise.

Keep ReadingShow less