Why the U.S. is experiencing heightened political violence

Read the Full Transcript

• Geoff Bennett:

  Charlie Kirk's killing comes amid an alarming rise in political violence across the U.S. targeting both Democrats and Republicans.

  There was the killing of Minnesota Democratic lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, as well as the shooting of a state senator and his wife, the firebombing of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro's residence, the murder of two Israeli Embassy staffers at a Jewish museum in Washington, D.C., the attack on former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's husband, the January 6 insurrection, and two assassination attempts against President Trump.

  For a deeper look at this trend and what may follow, we're joined now by Rachel Kleinfeld, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and an expert on democracy and political violence, as well as Jeff Sharlet, a professor at Dartmouth College who studies rising extremism.

  Thank you both for being with us.

  Rachel, I will start with you.

  We have this horrific timeline of violence, too many examples. What feels distinct to you about this moment?

  Rachel Kleinfeld, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: So it is a different moment. I have been watching political violence rise over the last 10 years in America.

  But when you target someone in this way, it leads to people pointing fingers. And that's what we're seeing now is folks on the right saying, here's my litany of dead and I'm going to go after the Democrats, and people on the left saying, we are applauding this person because the murder of Charlie Kirk was the only way we felt we could get justice.

  When you see that mutual finger-pointing, what you get is an escalation. You get a sense that, if the government's not going to keep a lid on things, we're going to take it into our own hands. And that is very bad news from an escalation standpoint.

• Geoff Bennett:

  Jeff Sharlet, how did we get here? What is shaping this current political climate?

• Jeff Sharlet, Dartmouth College:

  I mean, we're years now into the escalation of rhetoric and action that we have all talked about. The proliferation of guns in civilian hands, except for these relatively tiny, but terrible cases are not often used, but more and more — and we see it, in fact, after yesterday, lots of people saying, I'm going to go and arm up. I'm going to buy a gun.

  And what I think those guns are functioning as, it's almost your ticket out of democracy. It's your way of imagining like, well, I'd like for this thing to hold together. But in case it doesn't, I have a foot in this other reality. That other reality doesn't exist. It's delusional.

  But it enables people to support and believe in extreme cases, so that this extremism has its own gravity now. And to that list of political violence, I think, for viewers on the right — and I think they're absolutely erroneous in saying this, but the litany that I'm seeing again and again is that the Charlie Kirk assassination came after a killing on a railway in Charlotte, North Carolina, and that terrible school shooting, neither of which were — appear to be political shootings.

  But on the right, that's the gravity. You can swoop — you can just sweep in any crime and say it's part of this scare situation that entitles you to take ever more extreme steps.

• Geoff Bennett:

  Rachel, if this moment feels different, feels distinct, what should Americans be bracing for in the days and weeks ahead?

• Rachel Kleinfeld:

  You know, rather than brace themselves, I'd love to see them do something. Political violence is highly predictable. This kind of trend line that we have been seeing rise since 2015, it's highly predictable what makes it go up and what can make it come down.

  What we need is for our political leaders on both sides to condemn this unequivocally, especially once it comes out who actually committed this, because we still don't know that person's ideology. Whomever side that person is on needs to condemn extra loud. But, really, everyone needs their politicians to condemn it.

  We need to stop supporting politicians who are using it as a political football and saying this will give us the go-ahead to go after the other side. And then, as communities, we have to say, no longer, not on our watch. As Jeff was saying, we are a heavily armed society. That doesn't lead directly to political violence. Otherwise, we wouldn't have seen this rise.

  But it sure does enable it once it gets going. And we all have a stake in pulling it down. And that is within our agency.

• Geoff Bennett:

  And, Jeff, are there examples either in U.S. history or abroad where societies pulled back from cycles of political violence? What lessons can we draw?

• Jeff Sharlet:

  I mean, we saw pretty extensive political violence in the late 1960s, early 1970s, and things did not fall apart.

  Let's not forget that, throughout the '80s and '90s, in addition to the really high-profile targeted killings of abortion providers, there were huge numbers of bombings and bomb threats. And that did help lead to this moment we're in. But it did not ignite.

  And the way I think of it right now is, as a society, as a society, we are flicking matches into dry grass and daring them to light. And I know there are people out there that say the flames are already lit. But that's the good news. It is not an inferno. This isn't a full civil war. This isn't Ukraine. This is a simmer.

  But that means that there is room to do otherwise, as Rachel suggests.

• Geoff Bennett:

  And, Rachel, what gives you hope that we can find our way as a society out of this cycle?

• Rachel Kleinfeld:

  Unfortunately, this is not America's first bout of political violence that moves from one side to the other, back to the first.

  We had the civil rights murders in the '50s and early '60s, and then we had violence from the Weathermen and the Sudanese Liberation Army and so on in the 60s and 70s. And then we had the skinheads in the '80s and the militias and the anti-abortion activists, and then the environmental and animal rights groups.

  We have been through this before. We have brought it down before as well. This has not been at a high level since the early '50s. We have brought it down multiple times. The fever has to break. And I think Jeff is right that this delusional idea that you buy a gun and you opt out of the system and you protect your own family, that's not how it works.

  It's not just that violence is on the right and violence is on the left. It's also there was a school shooting yesterday. There will be mass shootings. These things move from left and right to just greater levels of violence. Everyone has an incentive to help the fever break sooner.

• Geoff Bennett:

  Rachel Kleinfeld, Jeff Sharlet, thank you both for your perspectives and for your time this evening. We appreciate it.

• Rachel Kleinfeld:

  Thank you.

• Jeff Sharlet:

  Thank you, Geoff.