Part I: The Corrosive Impact of Political Violence on Democracy
Many Americans viscerally recognize a growing threat of political violence in our society. Democracy and government stability feel precarious, activities that used to feel safe now generate anxiety, and rhetoric has heated to toxic levels.
Although actual physical political violence is fairly rare, key incidents against federal government officials and institutions receive national attention. For example, the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, was a violent attack on people (police, members of Congress of both parties, and staff members) that resulted in property destruction, injury, and death. It also was a severe attack on democracy and US society as a whole—aiming to cancel the democratic will of the people.
While this assault is the most publicized example of political violence in recent US history, it is part of a larger trend. Republican Congressman Steve Scalise and three other people were shot in 2017.² In 2023, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s residence was invaded by an attacker who severely injured her husband with a hammer.³ The effect of these and other violent acts and the fear they create are still playing out today.
Beyond these high-profile incidents focused on national politicians, state and local-level cases of physical, political violence against civilians also do enormous damage. Examples include the 2018 attack on the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh that killed 11 people;⁴ the 2019 killing of 22 people at an El Paso Walmart by a man who was targeting Mexicans,⁵ the racially motivated attack that killed ten Black shoppers at a supermarket in Buffalo in 2022,⁶ and the shooting of five volunteers, of whom one died, at a Black Lives Matter rally in Portland, OR.⁷ Politically motivated attacks have also taken place against Asian Americans, members of the LGBTQI community, and other individuals based on their perceived political leanings. As with high-profile attacks on politicians, political violence targeting civilians creates repercussions that are severe, long-lasting, and extend nationwide.
A primary reason for this is the fear that such incidents create. Political violence is usually directed at particular individuals or institutions and aims to eliminate them or coerce them to comply with the demands of the violent perpetrator(s). Yet the overall target of political violence is much broader—it includes every onlooker. In fact, onlookers can be understood as a primary target of such activities, and proponents of political violence understand this very well. When violence happens against a single member of Congress, or a single member of local government, or a single nonviolent citizen based on their identity or political activities, it aims to strike fear and change the behavior of every member of Congress, every member of local government, and every citizen who wants to participate in our democracy.
This means that if you reside in the United States and stand for democracy, you are an intended victim of political violence. A goal of political violence is to intimidate you. Those who incite, threaten, and enact political violence want you to change your behavior. They want to control how you use your political voice, influence your personal or professional judgment, and deny you from exercising your constitutional rights or fully engaging in our country’s political system.
However, fear fades over time, which means that bullies need tactics to keep people frightened. To achieve this, the number of threats made to individuals at the local, state, and federal levels is increasing. People are targeted based on their perceived political views, activities, or job responsibilities, and threats can take many forms—including generalized incitement to violence via media outlets, targeted harassment that is designed to physically intimidate, bomb scares against government and private buildings, direct threats to individuals and their families, and openly carrying weapons such as firearms during public hearings and while protesting. Further activities that intimidate and function as threats include doxing, vandalism, and acts of property destruction.⁸
Some actions, such as swatting, also blur the line between threats and physical political violence.⁹
Although many threats are empty and not carried out, relatively rare incidents of actual physical political violence serve to make all threats seem credible and thus give threats their power.
“Even though the swatting incident at my home was a fake call, alleging an emergency at my home, it was designed to terrorize. It was designed to make me afraid and send a message not only to me but to others.”
HOW POLITICAL VIOLENCE WORKS
It may seem surprising that relatively few incidents of physical political violence, alongside many empty threats from a very small minority of the US population, are so damaging to US society and democracy.
Yet fear is a powerful motivator, and threats and PV strike at the intersection of people’s personal lives as well as our political life as a country. Thus, they have detrimental effects on both individuals as well as society as a whole.
Some of these impacts are outlined below.
Personal Impacts
Those receiving direct threats of political violence can experience major stress and harm. These include resource costs on a person, employers, and public budgets to ensure security; impairment of a person’s ability to carry out their job responsibilities; significant psychological distress due to fear of physical attacks against a person and their family; and, ultimately, resignation of talented and committed people from their jobs and professions altogether.¹⁰
“As a public servant of 20 years, I’m incredibly disheartened to see good people stepping down from public service because of the impact that threats – very real threats – have on their sense of security, on their families, on their ability to serve their communities and fulfill their duties.”
Yet the effects of threats of PV also go beyond those who are directly targeted. Impacts are felt quietly and pervasively by millions of people around the country in their communities, causing them to censor themselves, fear displaying a political yard sign or t-shirt, and abstain from participating in events or activities that they feel may be targeted. Even for those who feel safe in their communities, hearing about incidents elsewhere can lead them to avoid political activities, opt-out of public service (including running for public office), or curtail their speech in person or online.
This means that confronting political violence is a deeply personal matter—it is about claiming, protecting, and strengthening our personal rights, freedoms, and security, as well as those of our communities. No one is immune from fear, and while some do not like to admit it, threats of PV can creep into decision making and cause people to modify their choices, speech, and activities. Some people may also be so accustomed to a baseline feeling of fear of PV that they assume it is normal. However, it is important to recognize that this state of affairs is not ok, and not inevitable. We must fight to reverse it.
Impacts on Democracy
The threat of PV also has grave significance for democracy. Its impact on individuals accumulates to the point where our shared system of government is undermined. To understand how this happens, it is helpful to briefly revisit the fundamentals of democracy in theory and practice.
We have a large, diverse, and vibrant country. Nationwide, Americans differ across generations, backgrounds, geography, lifestyles, cultures, wealth, income levels, professions, races, ethnicities, sexual orientations, genders, and religious and political beliefs, among other characteristics.
The ideal of democracy is that it can contain our population’s differences and channel our views through debate, elections, the judicial system, and other institutional mechanisms. Political conflict is inevitable, especially during times of turbulent or rapid change, but democracy aims to remove the threat and use of violence as a way to resolve our differences.
To achieve this, democracy depends on a fairly high level of societal trust, as well as several institutional pillars:
Free and fair elections.¹¹
Widespread popular participation in elections.¹²
Civil and political rights, particularly rights to free expression and assembly.¹³
Free and independent media.¹⁴
Rule of law.¹⁵
All of these pillars are needed for democracy to function, and a weakness in any one of them can spread to the others. Thus, the US Constitution guarantees rights of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and due process under law. Public officials also swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and to faithfully exercise their duties in accordance with the law.
However, US democracy also struggles, and historically has failed, to live up consistently to these ideals. For example, the federal, state, and local governments have been inconsistent in—and sometimes fallen egregiously short of—upholding democracy’s pillars for some groups. Historically, rights have been denied to members of traditionally marginalized communities, often alongside the threat of political violence. Corruption has also undermined accountable government to varying extents. In addition, not all US government institutions are based on fully democratic laws or practices of equal and fair representation for all, including the way senators are elected (two senators per state, regardless of the state’s population); the existence of the Senate filibuster; the persistence of gerrymandered legislative districts; the existence of the electoral college; various barriers to third party candidacies; and the fact that the population of Washington, DC, has limited voting rights.
The current wave of political violence compounds US democracy’s existing problems. In fact, political violence is one of the greatest attacks on the US Constitution and one of the most corrosive influences on democracy. This is because it can undermine all of the democratic pillars. It is used in attempts to overturn elections; reduce voter turnout; push qualified candidates to avoid public service; spread fear about participating in public life; narrow debate, silence voices, and impede the free expression of ideas; intimidate a free press; and undemocratically influence the decision making of public officials.
Therefore, democracy and the presence of political violence are fundamentally incompatible. Political violence and threats are tools of authoritarians, and as they increase, US democracy is seriously undermined.¹⁶
Some may feel that the US version of democracy is already so ineffective that they are not motivated to save it. Yet while US democracy has flaws and need for reform, it still compares very favorably to more authoritarian alternatives.¹⁷ Quite simply, democracy holds an incomparable promise of progress, stability, and security for our country. To make good on this promise, protecting democracy—and hopefully ultimately strengthening it—is essential.
WHY WE MUST ACT
When threats achieve their intended results, they embolden those who use them. It’s clear that inciting PV has become politically or economically profitable for some. Some perpetrators also find threat-making to be psychologically gratifying. For these reasons, the very small minority in the US who incite, threaten, and enact PV won’t stop on their own.¹⁸ We, the vast majority, must take action to stop them by imposing costs on their actions.
We are not alone in this effort. The federal, state, and local governments, as well as nongovernmental organizations, have stepped up as well. A number of existing efforts are outlined in the Appendix of this guide, and they include actions like:
Law enforcement responses, including passing new laws imposing penalties, and developing new government initiatives to address threats of PV.¹⁹
Litigation against groups that incite and threaten PV.
Allocating greater resources to the physical and online security of individuals and institutions.
Having politicians and other public officials denounce PV.
Calling for greater moderation of content by social media companies.
Calling for advertising boycotts of platforms that are deemed to tolerate inciteful rhetoric or threats.
Grassroots groups may want to support such efforts. They should also be aware of relevant state and federal laws that aim to address threats of PV (more information about these laws is available in Part IV).
However, it’s also important to note that current government efforts to counter PV are not adequate by themselves. As the threat of PV rises, governments do not have the resources—and sometimes do not have the political will—to respond fully to this dispersed and growing challenge.²⁰ Critically, governments also have severe limits on the actions they can take regarding threats of PV, as First Amendment protections on free speech mean that the vast majority of threats are not prosecuted.²¹
The actions of advocacy organizations using tactics such as litigation, calls for moderation by social media companies, and calls for economic pressure on advertisers are also important, but they have not been sufficient.
These efforts are incomplete because one of the greatest sources of power to counter political violence is currently under-engaged. Hundreds of millions of Americans find political violence unacceptable. Yet most have not been given much guidance on how to take actions that impose costs on perpetrators, and/or support victims.
This is a guide for these Americans in communities across the country. A key to turning the tide is having the majority stand up, organize, and build power locally so that they can make PV backfire.
Part II of this guide introduces five principles for how to achieve this.
Part III applies these five backfire principles to current circumstances in the United States.
Part IV provides information on relevant laws that address political violence, as well as additional resources which can be helpful in planning backfire campaigns.
Lastly, any strategy should be based on available facts and clear analysis relevant to the problem. The Appendix provides background about the state of threats and PV in the US today.
Footnotes
² Pete Williams, Alex Moe, and Erik Ortiz, “Congressman Steve Scalise, Three Others Shot at Alexandria, Virginia Baseball Field,” NBC News, June 14, 2017.
³ Nadine El-Bawab, Pierre Thomas, Josh Margolin, and Alex Stone, “Suspect in Pelosi Home Invasion Attack Had Zip Ties, Duct Tape: Sources,” ABC News, October 30, 2022.
⁴ Jeanine Santucci, “Gunman Guilty in Shooting Deaths of 11 Worshippers at Pittsburgh Tree of Life Synagogue,” USA Today, June 16, 2023.
⁵ Tara Law, “El Paso Shooting Suspect Told Police He Was Targeting 'Mexicans': Here's What to Know About the Case,” Yahoo! News, August 3, 2019.
⁶ Jenna Zucker, Steve Gorman, and Moira Warburton, “Gunman Kills 10 in Live-Streamed Racial Attack at Supermarket in Buffalo,” Reuters, May 16, 2022.
⁷ Robert Mackey, “A Gunman Killed and Injured Protesters at a BLM March: Why Did Police Blame the Victims?,” The Guardian, February 19, 2024.
⁸ Doxing is: “The publishing of sensitive personal information online—including home address, email, phone number, social security number, photos, etc.—to harass, intimidate, extort, stalk, or steal the identity of a target.”
Source: PEN America, “Defining ‘Online Abuse’: A Glossary of Terms,” Online Harassment Field Manual.
⁹ Swatting is: “Placing a hoax call to law enforcement detailing a completely false threatening event taking place at a target’s home or business, with the intention of sending a fully armed police unit (SWAT team) to the target’s address.”
Source: PEN America, “Defining ‘Online Abuse.’”
¹⁰ Evidence and references for these points are found in the Appendix of this guide.
¹¹ “Free and fair elections” means that elections must be open to a wide range of parties and candidates; all adult citizens must be able to participate without fear of casting their ballot; and all votes must be counted and registered in the final election result.
¹² “Widespread popular participation in elections” means that a large portion of the population participates in elections. To enable this, laws, rules, and practices must support civic participation, rather than create excessive barriers to it.
¹³ “Civil and political rights” means that people have rights to freely participate in public life, including speaking freely, forming associations, and assembling (which includes protesting), and to be free from discrimination. These rights support the free debate of ideas, enable individuals to hold government accountable, uphold equality, and protect groups that lose elections or criticize powerholders from persecution by incumbents in government. They are thus essential for democracy to sustain itself.
¹⁴ “Free and independent media” ensures an informed citizenry and serves as an additional check on potential government abuse. It is associated with rights of free expression.
¹⁵ “Rule of law” means that laws are upheld and enforced impartially. At minimum, this requires an independent judiciary, and ongoing efforts to curtail corruption.
¹⁶ For example, see: “Authoritarianism: How You Know It When You See It,” Horizons Project.
¹⁷ Research documents the many benefits of democracy over authoritarian governments on issues such as economic growth, peace and security, gender equality, social safety net spending, and other issues. See: “Case for Democracy,” V-Dem Institute.
¹⁸ For more information on percentages of Americans that oppose or support political violence, see the Appendix.
¹⁹ For an example of government initiatives, see Part IV and for links to various government laws, see the Appendix.
²⁰ It should also be noted that while government and law enforcement bodies can sometimes be allies in countering certain forms of PV, in other cases they can themselves be enactors of PV.
²¹ For example, in 2022, the US Capitol Police investigated 7,501 threats made to members of Congress. This resulted in only 46 prosecutions (a prosecution rate of approximately 0.6%). This means that over 99% of threats made to members of Congress in 2022 led to no accountability in the criminal justice system. This issue is detailed in more depth in the Appendix.