A disturbing undercurrent is flowing through American political discourse. New polling data reveals a significant shift in how many citizens view political violence – not as a fringe concept, but increasingly as a potentially justified response to perceived threats.
The PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll released last week found nearly one in five Americans now believe violence could be justified to advance political objectives. This marks a concerning evolution in our national dialogue that I’ve been tracking through multiple election cycles.
“We’re seeing a normalization of extreme rhetoric translating into acceptance of extreme actions,” explained Dr. Rachel Kleinfeld, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, during our conversation about these findings. “This represents a dangerous erosion of democratic norms.”
The numbers tell a sobering story. Approximately 18% of respondents indicated they could envision scenarios where political violence might be warranted. What’s particularly alarming is the bipartisan nature of this sentiment – it spans ideological divides, though with different triggers and justifications.
During my reporting from swing states last month, I encountered this firsthand. In a Lancaster, Pennsylvania diner, Frank Mendez, a 58-year-old construction foreman, confided, “I’m not violent, never have been. But I’m starting to wonder if voting is enough anymore. The system feels rigged.” His statement echoed sentiments I heard repeatedly – a profound distrust in institutions once considered sacrosanct.
The historical context matters greatly. Political violence in America has ebbed and flowed throughout our history, from the Civil War to the turbulent 1960s. What makes this moment distinct is how technological amplification intersects with polarization.
According to the U.S. Capitol Police, threats against members of Congress have increased nearly tenfold since 2017. The January 6th insurrection represents the most visible manifestation of political violence, but experts warn it may not be an isolated incident.
Lee Drutman from the New America Foundation explained to me, “When people lose faith in democratic processes, alternative methods of achieving political goals become more attractive. The danger comes when violence gets rationalized as patriotic rather than recognized as fundamentally anti-democratic.”
The Department of Homeland Security has repeatedly identified domestic violent extremism as the most persistent and lethal terrorist threat facing the country. Their 2023 Threat Assessment highlighted how “individuals with ideological grievances” pose significant security concerns for election infrastructure and public officials.
Yet beyond the statistics lies a more nuanced reality. My conversations with everyday Americans reveal many exist in a conflicted middle ground – disturbed by growing acceptance of violence while simultaneously feeling unheard through conventional political channels.
“I absolutely reject violence,” said Melissa Turner, a school administrator I interviewed in Arizona. “But I understand the frustration. When you feel powerless in a democracy, that’s a dangerous place to be.”
Media ecosystems play a crucial role in this dynamic. Separate information environments create parallel realities where the same events receive radically different interpretations. This fragmentation makes consensus nearly impossible on basic facts, much less complex policy issues.
The polling data shows particular concern regarding election periods. Nearly 42% of Americans express worry about political violence during the upcoming election cycle, compared to just 27% four years ago. This anxiety transcends party lines, though the specific feared scenarios differ dramatically.
Solutions remain elusive but essential. Conflict resolution experts emphasize the importance of creating spaces for productive disagreement without demonization. Organizations like Braver Angels have pioneered workshops bringing together Americans across political divides, finding common humanity beneath partisan identities.
Law enforcement approaches have evolved as well. The FBI has expanded its domestic terrorism units while attempting to balance security concerns against First Amendment protections. This delicate balance requires sophisticated threat assessment frameworks distinguishing between protected speech and genuine indicators of impending violence.
My reporting suggests a crucial distinction between understanding the causes of political violence and justifying it. Democracy fundamentally requires channeling grievances through peaceful mechanisms – voting, protest, advocacy, and legal challenges.
The historical lesson is clear. Once political violence becomes normalized, democracy itself is imperiled. As political tensions escalate heading toward November, our collective response to these warning signs may determine the future of American democratic governance.
The path forward requires addressing legitimate grievances within democratic frameworks while firmly rejecting violence as a political tool. This begins with everyday Americans recommitting to democratic principles, even amid profound disagreement.
For more comprehensive analysis of political trends, visit Epochedge Politics or explore additional political coverage at Epochedge News.
Emily Carter has covered four presidential elections and specializes in the intersection of political movements and democratic institutions. Her reporting from all 50 states provides ground-level insights into American political attitudes.
