After learning about the shooting of two lawmakers and their spouses on Saturday, President Trump appropriately denounced the tragedy, saying, “Such horrific violence will not be tolerated.”
This violence did not come out of nowhere. The landscape for it has built up over time, because of a variety of factors, including deeply polarized politics, social alienation, disinformation and in-your-face trolling on social media. Also among those factors, surely, is Mr. Trump’s pardoning of the Jan. 6 rioters. The unfortunate reality is that Americans of all political stripes are coming to see violence as a legitimate means of expressing dissent.
Whether attacks are directed at Democrats, Republicans or anyone else, they come at a steep cost to democracy: When threats and the risk of harm are unavoidable components of serving in elective office, many well-qualified candidates will conclude that the job is not worth that heavy price.
According to reports, a lone gunman shot two Minnesota Democratic state legislators and their spouses in their homes early Saturday morning, killing State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, and critically wounding State Senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette. In the vehicle driven by the suspect in the killings, Vance Boelter, investigators found a manifesto, which included a hit list of public officials and abortion providers. Regardless of Mr. Boelter’s political party preference, if any, his conduct has no place in a liberal democracy.
Mr. Trump, himself the target of two assassination attempts, has normalized conduct we once thought of as being confined to developing countries with unstable forms of government. On the first day of his second term, Mr. Trump pardoned more than 1,500 people charged with crimes committed at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, including those who were convicted of assaulting police officers in a brutal and bloody attack. Our nation was founded on the principle that we resolve our disputes through informed debate, at the ballot box and in courts of law. Having failed to achieve their goals through legitimate means, the attackers instead used brute force to try to achieve their political objective when the stakes were at their very highest: while the transfer of presidential power was taking place.
Mr. Trump’s recent use of military troops to respond to protests in Los Angeles, despite objections from local officials, created an intimidating show of physical force that a judge found illegal. According to the court, the “unlawful militarization” of an American city “inflames tensions with protesters, threatening increased hostilities and loss of life.” (The court’s ruling was temporarily stayed by a higher court soon after it was issued.)
Political violence has existed in the United States since its founding. But in recent years, we have seen an increase in the incidence of threats and harassment against public officials. The Minnesota killings were reminiscent of the 2022 attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband in their home by a hammer-wielding intruder. Last year the U.S. Capitol Police documented a surge in threats against members of Congress, with more than 9,000 incidents.
Threats against judges are also on the rise. In his year-end report, Chief Justice John Roberts noted more than 1,000 serious threats against federal judges in the past five years, as well as an increase in incidents of doxxing, or publicly releasing personal information, such as a phone number or home address. Swatting, in which a 911 caller falsely reports an emergency situation at a target’s home to lure tactical police units to respond with guns drawn, has become a frequent occurrence at the homes of public figures.
Local officials also report an increase in hostile incidents. Nine men were convicted or pleaded guilty after participating in the 2020 plot to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan after her shutdown orders during the Covid pandemic. Mr. Trump recently mused about pardoning the defendants. This year, an arsonist set fire to the residence of Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania while he and his family slept.
The current threat climate is likely the result of a confluence of events: the pervasiveness of social media, where anonymity makes it easy to lash out at strangers and where provoking outrage is rewarded; the increase in remote work, which reduces our exposure to other perspectives; the drop in engagement in civic life, which confines us to our political tribes, separated from community members with different viewpoints.
The problem only escalates when we have a president who stokes outrage and division in society. Mr. Trump’s unique style of politics seems like a catalyst for the current climate of intimidation and fear. While his brand of discourse may be an effective way to campaign, it is a dangerous way to govern. People look to their leaders to model behavior that is not only acceptable but also to be emulated. We have a president who refused to denounce the extremist group then known as the Proud Boys, instead telling them to “stand back and stand by” during his 2020 campaign.
According to a 2022 Joint Counterterrorism Assessment Team bulletin, “Violent extremists justify their actions through grievances, such as perceived government and law enforcement overreach, the anticipation of opposing legislative changes and the proliferation of misinformation and conspiracy theories.” Divisive speech from our leaders only adds fuel to the fire.
I do not believe that Mr. Trump seeks to provoke political violence. But too often, his conduct and language recklessly disregard its risk. False claims about the weaponization of the Justice Department under President Joe Biden or Haitian immigrants eating cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio, stoke outrage. Sometimes, outrage sparks something much worse.
Barbara McQuade is a professor from practice at the University of Michigan Law School and a former U.S. attorney. She is the author of “Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America.”
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
The post Political Violence Came to Minnesota. It Didn’t Start There. appeared first on New York Times.
