[By Bhanu Dhamija]

American democracy has come under fire recently, with growing concerns that it is plagued by political violence. This bleak perception has been fueled by several high-profile incidents, including the assassination of Charlie Kirk, two attempts on Donald Trump’s life, and the January 6th Capitol riot. While each of these events is tragic and a shame for any democracy, the broader reality is more reassuring: political violence in the United States remains rare, is not always politically motivated, and garners little support from the public.

Since 1975, politically motivated terrorist attacks have resulted in 3,597 deaths, accounting for just 0.35% of all murders in the United States, according to a recent study by the Cato Institute. The study uses a broad definition of politically motivated violence: “the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a nonstate actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through coercion, fear, or intimidation. ”If the 9/11 attacks by Islamist extremists are excluded, that percentage drops sharply to just 0.06%. More recently, since 2020, political violence has caused 79 deaths—roughly 0.07% of all murders during that period.

Just this month, the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) reported that politically motivated extremist activity in the United States has fallen to its lowest level in five years.  ACLED, an independent organization that monitors conflicts around the world, noted in its report: “This nadir in extremist activity represents a steady decline since 2023.” The agency suggests several possible reasons for the drop, including a shift toward more covert tactics, difficulties in organizing, or a reduced sense of urgency as some extremist groups now see their views increasingly reflected in mainstream politics.

It is heartening that Americans’ support for political violence is declining even in today’s deeply polarized environment. After the two assassination attempts on Trump last year, The New York Times reported “the surprising reality of political violence in America”: rather than increasing, public support for partisan violence actually decreased. “Even amid an explosive political climate and some high-profile incidents, politics may not be becoming broadly more violent,” The Times reported.

A lot of what we’ve been seeing recently, even just over the last year, has been violence targeting a political figure for nonpolitical ends or for maybe dubiously political ends. — Prof. Lilliana Mason

Data also suggests that much of today’s political violence isn’t political in the traditional sense. In a recent interview, Lilliana Mason, a political science professor at the Johns Hopkins Agora Institute and an expert on political violence, noted, “A lot of what we’ve been seeing recently, even just over the last year, has been violence targeting a political figure for nonpolitical ends or for maybe dubiously political ends.” She added, “In fact, these attacks are almost more like school shooters, where it’s a disturbed young person who’s trying to get attention and wants to go down in history. It’s violence against a political figure, but it’s not entirely because they want to achieve a political goal.”

Personal rather than political

In nearly all recent high-profile incidents, the shooters appear to be driven more by personal issues than by clear political ideology. The suspect in Charlie Kirk’s assassination, for example, was reportedly angry about the conservative activist’s views, but he wasn’t a committed leftist. He wasn’t a registered Democrat, didn’t vote in 2024, and according to his mother, his political leanings had only recently shifted leftward. His motive may have had more to do with his romantic relationship with his transgender roommate than with politics. Similarly, the 20-year-old who nearly killed Trump last year fits the profile of a self-destructive school shooter more than that of a political extremist. And the 57-year-old man accused of murdering Minnesota Democratic lawmaker Melissa Hortman was a father of five who struggled to hold a job. While he may hold conservative views, he has offered no explanation for his actions.

None of this is to suggest that political violence in the United States is not a serious concern. All it takes is a single incident or issue to ignite a cycle of violence that can be hard to contain. American history offers sobering examples. In the 1800s, conflict over slavery escalated over decades and ultimately led to the Civil War, claiming nearly 700,000 lives. In the 1960s, the civil rights movement was marked by the assassinations of key Black leaders, including Medgar Evers and Martin Luther King Jr. And in just an 18-month span between 1971 and 1972, the country saw over 2,500 bombings in protest of the Vietnam War.

Political violence is more worrisome today since now the groups are organized along partisan lines. Comparing today’s environment with the 1960s, Mason noted, “Back then, it could be kind of random. But when the parties are helping organize the animosity, the violence itself can become more institutionalized.”

However, the good news is that Americans’ appetite for political violence remains very low. The New York Times just reported that only a tiny percentage support violence, despite what some polls may show. “As the poll question gets more specific and imagined acts become more violent, support for violence falls close to zero.”

American democracy is vibrant and resilient. It has withstood far greater challenges and can certainly endure a few isolated acts of political violence.