Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

America’s Long History of Political Violence—and Why We Can’t Ignore It Now

From civil rights to Charlie Kirk: Why America’s legacy of political violence still shapes our democracy.

Opinion

America’s Long History of Political Violence—and Why We Can’t Ignore It Now

Political violence has deep roots in American history. From 1968 to today, Jeanne Sheehan Zaino explore why violence remains a force for change in U.S. society.

Getty Images, B.S.P.I.

In 1968, amid riots and assassinations, a magazine asked leading intellectuals why America was so violent. Among the responses was one that stood out—H. Rap Brown’s now-infamous line: “Violence is as American as cherry pie.”

Anthropologist Clifford Geertz dismissed the phrase as a cliché. But sociologist St. Clair Drake took it seriously. “However repulsive and shocking,” Drake wrote, Brown was “telling it like it is.” Americans, he said, must face the fact that their society is, by global standards, a very violent one.


That was April 1968. Martin Luther King Jr. had just been assassinated. Bobby Kennedy would be killed two months later. The decade had already seen the violent deaths of Medgar Evers, John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, and even George Lincoln Rockwell, leader of the American Nazi Party.

Today, as we process the murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk—which Utah Gov. Spencer Cox called a “political assassination”—Drake’s words feel as relevant as ever.

This killing didn’t happen in a vacuum. It joins a long and disturbing list: the plot to kidnap Michigan’s governor, the arson attack on Pennsylvania’s, the fatal shooting of a Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband, assassination attempts against Donald Trump, the brutal assault on Nancy Pelosi’s husband, and the recent murders of two Israeli staffers in D.C. and the UnitedHealth CEO.

This isn’t just polarization. It’s something deeper.

Yes, the rhetoric has gotten more toxic. Leaders on both the right and left blame each other. In his remarks after Kirk’s death, President Trump pointed to the “radical left.” Others blame social media, conspiracy theories, or partisan cable news. Those things matter.

But we can’t ignore the broader context: In America, violence has often been used as a tool for political change—not just by extremists, but by everyday people who’ve felt ignored or powerless.

That was Drake’s main point. Violence, he said, is often “a direct or indirect force for changing the status quo.” It’s what happens when people believe the system isn’t listening. This isn’t an excuse. It’s a warning.

A few months after Drake wrote those words, the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence released a 350,000-word report. One of its key findings? That nearly every group in American history has used violence—either to protect themselves or to push for change. We’ve seen this play out time and again.

H. Rap Brown himself started in the nonviolent civil rights movement. He led the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). But over time, he lost faith in peaceful protest. He aligned with the Black Panther and declared that nonviolence in the face of injustice was not just ineffective, but immoral.

“Violence is necessary,” he said. “It’s part of America’s culture.”

The Black Panthers embraced militant self-defense. Their Ten-Point Program ended with a quote from the Declaration of Independence—the same one America’s Founders used to justify a revolution: “It is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government.”

It’s uncomfortable, but it’s true: Our country was born in political violence. And to this day, many Americans still believe it’s a legitimate response when they feel all other options have failed. We can't rewrite history, but we can learn from it.

We’ll never eliminate political violence by just condemning it after the fact. We have to make the system more responsive. The Founders deliberately made change hard—to protect against mob rule. But in doing so, they also made it easier for people to feel shut out.

Our challenge today is to protect liberty while making government work better for more people. That means strengthening voting rights, restoring faith in institutions, and creating real, peaceful avenues for change.

If we want to break the cycle, we need to make sure ballots always feel more powerful than bullets. That’s how we move forward—and how we ensure our democracy survives the next 250 years.

Jeanne Sheehan Zaino is a professor of political science and international studies at Iona University, Bloomberg political contributor and senior democracy fellow at the Center for the Study of the Presidency & Congress.

Read More

Political Violence Escalates: Charlie Kirk’s Assassination and the Fragility of Democracy

The appalling assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk while speaking at Utah Valley University marks another escalation in the dangerous normalization of political violence in the U.S. The murder of such a high-profile political figure underscores the fragility of democracy when disagreement is expressed not through debate or ballots but through the barrel of a gun. The tragedy must be understood as part of a broader pattern of radicalization, identity threat, and inadequate safeguards for candidates and elected officials.

After the assassination of a state legislator in Minnesota, we published an analysis on the psychological roots of political violence. That piece examined how violence is often driven more by deep psychological insecurity than by ideology, which political psychologists refer to as “defensive extremism.” Individuals who feel excluded, humiliated, or stripped of control can come to see violence as the only way to regain significance. This is especially true in contexts of rapid change, social isolation, or echo chambers that amplify grievances. As research indicates, the majority of violent acts are expressive rather than strategic eruptions of anger and fear, which are framed as moral or political necessities.

Keep ReadingShow less
For Whom the Bell Tolls: What Political Violence Reveals About Us

The bell tower from Mission Concepcion in San Antonio, Texas.

Getty Images, Gabriel Perez

For Whom the Bell Tolls: What Political Violence Reveals About Us

“Ask not for whom the bell tolls, the bell tolls for thee.”

The English poet, John Donne, wrote those words in the early 17th century, when it was customary for villagers to announce their fellow inhabitants’ deaths by the tolling of a single church bell.

Keep ReadingShow less
People looking at a TV screen, live broadcasting China's Victory Day military parade from Beijing on September 3, 2025 in Chongqing, China.

Elderly residents gather at a local civil affairs service center to watch the live broadcast of China's Victory Day military parade from Beijing on September 3, 2025 in Chongqing, China. The parade, commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, featured Chinese President Xi Jinping addressing the nation and reviewing troops and military equipment at Tiananmen Square

Getty Images, Cheng Xin

A New World Order Isn’t Coming, It’s Already Here − and This Is What It Looks Like

On Sept. 3, 2025, China celebrated the 80th anniversary of its victory over Japan by staging a carefully choreographed event in which 26 world leaders were offered a podium view of Beijing’s impressive military might.

The show of strength was deliberate and reignited a debate in Western mediaover whether we are on the cusp of a China-centric “new world order” to replace the U.S.-dominated international “rules-based order.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A globe resting on the very edge of a risen plank.

Foreign policy experts discuss the Israel-Gaza crisis, Iran tensions, Russia-Ukraine conflict, China’s strategy, and the shifting global order.

Getty Images, Daniel Grizelj

What in the World Is Going On?

In this moment, when global politics feel overwhelmed by unprecedented change and intense international upheaval, the Network for Responsible Public Policy convened foreign policy experts to discuss tariffs, conflicts between Israel and Gaza, Israel and Iran, the U.S. and Iran, Russia and Ukraine, North Korea’s role in all of this, and more. As program moderator and Axel Springer Fellow at the American Academy in Berlin, Gideon Rose put it at the outset, “Everybody's really interested in trying to figure out what is happening, what will happen next, what the consequences will be. The first point to make is that nobody knows anything. We are in uncharted territory in various areas.” Rose was joined by distinguished scholars, F. Gregory Gause III, Minxin Pei, Kathryn Stoner, and Shibley Telhami.

On Iran: Greg Gause discussed the situation in Iran and mentioned that, happily, the worst-case scenario based on the U.S. attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities did not happen, which is good for everyone. That worst-case scenario would have been an Iranian attack on Gulf oil facilities to bring in other actors to counter the U.S. and Israeli attacks. His concern with the current situation is that, with the U.S. President insisting that the nuclear facilities were obliterated, U.S. intelligence assessments must now be questioned, as they will necessarily be skewed to conform to the President’s preferred reality. Since it seems unlikely that the facilities were, in fact, destroyed, Gause believes that Iran now has an enormous incentive to race to develop a nuclear weapon. In what would become a main theme of this conversation (long-term stability even in the face of intense short-term upheaval), Gause mentioned that he does not believe that the current situation in Iran will result in a change to the Iranian regime.

Keep ReadingShow less