Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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 at Iona University, a democracy visiting fellow at the Harvard Kennedy Schools' Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, senior democracy fellow at the Center for the Study of the Presidency & Congress, & a Bloomberg News political contributor.

Read More

Historical documents representing founding principles of United States on flag backdrop

As the US Constitution turns 250, one expert argues it was designed as an antidote to tyranny — and warns that antidote is now at risk.

photovs/Getty Images

Why the Constitution Remains Our Defense Against Tyranny

There are many analogies for constitutions, for example, a social contract, a blueprint, a roadmap. But as we mark the 250th birthday of the United States of America, I propose another: constitution as antidote.

Constitutions are always intentionally and carefully designed, more often than not as antidotes to heal and ward off ills that a country wishes - or existentially needs - to avoid. This is, and has historically been, true all around the world, although the study of how constitutions and constitutional change can address root causes of conflict and instability has evolved greatly, allowing us to harness their healing power more effectively.

Keep ReadingShow less
A rose stands on the 9/11 Memorial for the North Tower in front of 3 and 4 World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.

A rose stands on the 9/11 Memorial for the North Tower in front of 3 and 4 World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.

Gary Hershorn/Getty Images

The 9/11 Town Hall That Helped Rebuild Ground Zero—and Democracy

As the nation and the world pause this week to honor and reflect on the 25th Anniversary of the terrorist attack that brought down the twin towers of the World Trade Center and killed more than 3,000 people, I am moved to share a very personal reflection.

After serving as Chief of Staff to Governor Celeste of Ohio and in the Clinton-Gore Administration, where I experienced firsthand how the major institutions in our country interact to favor the powerful over we the people, I became deeply concerned about the health of our democracy. It was clear to me that, beyond voting and national polling, the American people were not at the table to influence the decisions that most affect their lives.

Keep ReadingShow less
People casting their ballots.

Voters cast their ballots at the Buckhead Library for the primary runoff election on June 16, 2026 in Atlanta, Georgia.

Jessica McGowan/Getty Images

Bridgers in the House Face Disproportionate Headwinds in the Midterms

Congressional collaboration on Capitol Hill has become a lost art.

At Bridge Grades, we compile non-partisan 3rd party data to rank members of Congress on how collaboratively (or divisively) they govern. Our thesis is that a more collaborative and bipartisan Congress benefits Americans through a healthier Legislative Branch, stronger checks-and-balances, and more win-win legislation in our common interests.

Keep ReadingShow less
Women walks by voting booths.

People vote in New York's primary elections at an armory and YMCA in Brooklyn on June 23, 2026, in New York City.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Surging Socialists: A Warning for Democrats

Something is happening in the Democratic Party that is making party leaders and media pundits take notice. It became impossible to ignore with Zohran Mamdani’s 2025 election as mayor of New York City. Now comes Angie Nixon’s stunning victory in Florida’s Democratic Senate primary, where she defeated an establishment opponent who outspent her by more than ten to one.

Candidates challenging capitalism are finding a receptive audience, especially among younger Democrats. They are no longer easily dismissed as isolated insurgents in liberal enclaves, though their victories do not mean socialists are taking over the party.

Keep ReadingShow less