The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

What should liberals do when an assassin sounds like them?

An evidence-based guide to talking responsibly about Trump’s threat to democracy.

Cole Tomas Allen, the suspect in the attempted White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting, is unusual among attempted assassins — in his normalcy.

His political grievances, laid out in a manifesto and social media posts, are not dissimilar from those of an ordinary Democrat. He believed that President Donald Trump was a lawless, corrupt leader who abused immigrants, perpetrated war crimes, and presented an existential threat to American democracy.

I spoke with five leading experts on political violence in the United States. The picture they painted was complicated; they often didn’t agree on key points. But my best read of the evidence they presented led me to three conclusions.

Political violence becomes more likely when people believe that politics takes on existential stakes — that their way of life or cherished values are at risk — and that there is no hope of peaceful resolution to their conflicts.

For this reason, it’s not absurd to worry about that existential rhetoric on both sides — that whites are being “replaced,” that the 2020 elections were stolen, or that American democracy is dying — might create an environment where violence becomes more likely.

However, this risk can be mitigated significantly by emphasizing the ability to resolve perceived dangers through peaceful political processes.

He is not alone. Ryan Routh, the man who attempted to kill Trump at Mar-a-Lago, displayed notably more bizarre behavior — but had writings that echoed similar themes to Allen’s. While primarily preoccupied with Trump, they join the ranks of Luigi Mangione and Charlie Kirk’s alleged killer, Tyler Robinson, in what has increasingly been called “normie extremism.” These are people who express grievances in the center-left mainstream — for-profit health insurance is wrong, the right shouldn’t spread “hatred” — yet who apparently act on those beliefs in violent ways typically associated with political extremists.

It is not fully clear whether “normie extremism” is a coherent category. There have only been a handful of incidents that might qualify, and they differ from each other in important ways: The two would-be Trump assassins had distinct views from those of either Mangione or Robinson, who were also quite different from each other. Moreover, most of these cases still haven’t gone to trial, meaning we have only a fraction of the insight into motives we might eventually get.

Even so, the incidents are raising a real question: Is the mainstream liberal critique of Trump pushing people toward actual violence?

To call this question “real” is not to endorse the White House’s disingenuous efforts to exploit these incidents by turning the government on enemies like Jimmy Kimmel or James Comey or ordinary Americans. Nor does it ignore the bad faith of Republicans leveling complaints about Democratic rhetoric while supporting Trump, a one-of-one outlier in our political system when it comes to inflaming, mocking, and excusing political violence.

But even if we stipulate all of that, there are still good reasons to take the question seriously.

Trump’s second term has been an extended exercise in attacking democratic fundamentals. Raids by the unaccountable and growing ICE forces; his obsession with trying to undermine elections; his seemingly unpunished corruption and lying; even his lieutenants’ efforts to shut down comedians he doesn’t like — all of these are serious threats to democracy, and none of them have any real Republican opposition. I’m among the many writers who have been sounding alarm bells, and it requires some unavoidably blunt rhetoric to do so, given the gravity of the situation.

But these valid concerns do not justify assassinating the president or anyone else; all mainstream liberals agree on this point, and that the threat of violence makes things worse rather than better. If there is indeed any legitimate concern about “threat to democracy” talk leading to violence, Trump’s critics have an obligation both to the country and their own cause to figure out how best to minimize it.

So what should we do? If you (very reasonably) believe Trump is actively assaulting our democracy, how can you state these fears clearly while also tamping down the risk of destabilizing violence?

To grapple with these issues, I spoke with five leading experts on political violence in the United States. The picture they painted was complicated; they often didn’t agree on key points. But my best read of the evidence they presented led me to three conclusions:

Political violence becomes more likely when people believe that politics takes on existential stakes — that their way of life or cherished values are at risk — and that there is no hope of peaceful resolution to their conflicts.

For this reason, it’s not absurd to worry about that existential rhetoric on both sides — that whites are being........

© Vox