The attempted assassination of former president Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania on July 13 — which killed one and seriously injured two bystanders — had a sobering and reflective effect on the political scene. While investigators are still determining the shooter’s motives, it is essential to note that the shooting follows an upward trend in political assassination attempts over the last few years.
This trend will continue as long as the state continues to occupy its predominant position in society. While the motives and backgrounds of actors have differed, most possessed an existential dread over the policies of their intended victims. To stop this type of violence, we have to first reduce the political anxiety of the American people.
This anxiety arises from the belief that the opposition poses such a threat — to democracy or religious liberty, for instance — that those who hold these values must take action to stop it. Although those who use this rhetoric rarely call for violence against their opponents, one could argue that the rhetoric itself condones violent action.
Journalist Glenn Greenwald made this point regarding Trump’s critics in a post on X: “If Trump is Hitler, who will build concentration camps for his critics and never permit another U.S. election — all of which they claim — why would they lament this attack and pray for his recovery?”
Greenwald is correct that hyperbolic language about Trump’s threat contradicts their condemnation of violence. However, using strong or combative language is sometimes necessary to reflect the seriousness of a political issue. Politicians at all levels have passed legislation that violates people’s individual rights; without a free press capable and willing to denounce these actions in strong terms, democracy cannot function.
As Vox’s Eric Levitz argues regarding Trump’s deportation plans, “Many undocumented immigrants were brought to the U.S. as children and know no other home. It seems reasonable to say that Trump presents a threat to their freedom.” The same goes for those who claim that President Biden’s gun control policies “attack the fabric of American liberty.”
Although both sentiments are somewhat exaggerated, they reflect that public policy affects fundamental aspects of people’s lives. Understandably, people would respond dramatically (and occasionally violently) to political decisions.
To some, this conclusion implies that violence will always exist in politics as long as people hold strong political values. This idea is true to some extent. Before the Civil War, there was no compromise over slavery that both sides would find morally acceptable, making conflict inevitable.
However, the majority of political contentions do not invoke the same moral questions as slavery did. Instead, they involve arbitrary impediments to the economic and social lives of citizens regarding issues that do not involve the rights of others.
The growth of government intervention in economics through an increase in total regulatory restrictions, the restrictions placed on parents attempting to choose the right school for their children, and prohibitions on drug use are just a few examples of the statist idea that federal, state and local governments should control personal choices. These restrictions inevitably lead to anger and anxiety in politics because they force citizens to enter the political realm — whether this involves town halls, school board meetings or protests on the street — to fight for their ability to make these decisions.
This politicization of personal choice is the essence of statism. In “The Roots of War,” Ayn Rand explained statism’s results: “The degree of statism in a country’s political system, is the degree to which it breaks up the country into rival gangs and sets men against one another.”
These contentions would still occur in a free society, but they would be restricted to existential issues involving the rule of law and national defense, not disagreements over zoning or books in school libraries.
Indeed, the blame for political violence lies with those who commit it. However, the tensions created through the politicization of all areas of life inevitably lead to polarization that lays the foundation for violent acts to occur. The only method through which a society can reduce the chances of violence is to limit the state’s reach over individual choices.
