Do All Acts of Political Violence Need a Side?
Social Justice Policy Brief #170 | By: Morgan Davidson | January 07, 2025
Photo by Colin Lloyd
__________________________________
Summary
The start of 2025 has been marked by significant acts of political violence, setting an unsettling tone for the year. From the New Year’s terror attack in New Orleans to the explosion of a Tesla Cybertruck outside the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas, these incidents highlight a troubling escalation in politically charged violence. This series of events follows the tumultuous year of 2024, which saw two assassination attempts on President Trump and the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson—a crime classified as an act of domestic terror allegedly committed by Luigi Mangione. These developments suggest a shift from isolated, lower-level incidents to large-scale, nationally salient events reminiscent of January 6th.
This rise in political violence raises an important question: Must every act of political violence in a polarized America be classified along partisan lines?
Analysis
A friend recently suggested I write about the emergence of left-wing violence in the wake of Donald Trump’s re-election. At first glance, incidents like the Tesla bombing near Trump’s Las Vegas resort may seem easy to label as left-leaning violence. However, such conclusions often obscure a more complex reality. Acts of political violence, particularly those rooted in broader social grievances or religious ideologies, resist simplistic binary classifications.
Take, for example, the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson by Luigi Mangione. This act reveals a deeper frustration with the for-profit healthcare system, which many criticize for prioritizing profits over saving lives. The economic and emotional toll of such a system affects Americans across the political spectrum, transcending partisan boundaries. While the act itself is inexcusable, its underlying motivations reflect widespread discontent that cuts across ideological lines.
Similarly, acts of terror tied to religious extremism, such as the attack in New Orleans, challenge the utility of a partisan lens. When a perpetrator acts in alignment with ISIS or similar groups, their motivations often have little to do with domestic political affiliations. The chants of “Death to America” from such attackers make it clear that their agenda targets Americans collectively, regardless of partisan alignment. These are not acts meant to bolster a domestic left- or right-wing agenda but rather manifestations of foreign extremism with broader, more destructive goals.
Beyond Partisan Blame
While debates over the Middle East have polarized Americans, with partisans adopting staunch and opposing positions, acts of terror committed by individuals sympathetic to ISIS’s goals should not be framed within domestic political binaries. Such acts are expressions of allegiance to a foreign extremist ideology rather than extensions of internal partisan conflicts. Recognizing this distinction is essential for addressing the broader patterns and commonalities among these incidents.
By focusing on partisan blame, we risk obscuring the shared grievances that fuel these acts of violence. Political elites and media narratives often exploit such events to deepen divisions, shielding themselves from accountability and avoiding meaningful dialogue about systemic issues. For instance, the debate over whether Mangione was a Democrat or a Republican detracts from addressing the healthcare system’s flaws, which lie at the root of much of the public’s anger and despair.
Contributions from the Mental Health & Gun Crises
While partisan narratives often dominate discussions of political violence, it’s essential to consider that not all perpetrators are ideologically driven. For example, the two individuals who attempted to assassinate President Trump in 2024 have not been conclusively linked to specific political motivations. Instead, these cases appear to involve unstable loners acting out of personal grievances or psychological distress. Such examples remind us that some acts of violence defy traditional political categorizations, reflecting broader issues of mental health and societal alienation.
This observation is critical because it challenges the reflex to attribute every act of violence to partisan hostility. By overemphasizing political affiliations, we risk neglecting the underlying psychological and social factors that often drive these individuals to commit such heinous acts. Addressing these factors—whether through improved mental health resources or stronger community support systems—may help reduce the frequency of such violence.
Relatedly, a crucial aspect of America’s violence problem is the widespread availability of firearms. In almost every incident mentioned, from Luigi Mangione’s attack on UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson to the New Year’s attack in New Orleans, firearms or explosives played a central role. The sheer accessibility of weapons in the United States enables individuals, regardless of their political alignment or mental state, to carry out acts of violence with devastating consequences.
This sobering reality underscores a critical truth: the pervasive availability of firearms in the U.S. serves as a significant enabler of violence, whether politically motivated or otherwise. Irrespective of ideology, the ease of access to weapons empowers individuals to act on grievances—whether born of systemic inequalities, personal vendettas, or extremist ideologies. The recent surge in violence highlights the urgent need for investigative processes to prioritize identifying indicators of mental instability. Additionally, a coordinated national initiative is essential to confront the psychological challenges afflicting individuals nationwide, adopting a proactive stance to address these deep-seated risks and prevent further tragedies.
Addressing Shared Grievances
The murder of Brian Thompson underscores a shared sense of frustration and discontent among Americans—Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and others. Rather than dividing the public along partisan lines, we should focus on the systemic issues that contribute to such acts of violence. This includes acknowledging the fear, anger, and pain that drive individuals to commit these heinous acts. While these emotions do not justify violence, they highlight tangible hardships and unmet needs that demand attention from policymakers and society as a whole.
Similarly, the New Orleans attack reveals the futility of analyzing ISIS’s political stance within the context of American partisanship. It is unlikely that terrorists chanting “Death to America” care whether their victims are Democrats or Republicans. Such acts are driven by foreign ideological objectives, not by domestic political affiliations. Debating their partisan implications only distracts from the larger threat they pose to all Americans.
In both domestic and foreign contexts, these acts of violence highlight vulnerabilities that transcend American political binaries. They point to systemic issues—from healthcare inequalities to national security gaps—that require a unified response. Instead of waging identity politics or assigning blame along partisan lines, we must address the root causes of these grievances and work toward solutions that foster solidarity.
Whether it involves reforming the healthcare system to reduce economic anxieties or countering the influence of foreign extremist groups, the focus should be on actionable steps that address the underlying issues. Only by doing so can we begin to reduce the frequency and severity of these acts of violence and create a society that prioritizes unity and resilience over division and blame.
In conclusion, not every act of political violence in America needs to be classified along partisan lines. By shifting the narrative away from binary classifications and toward a more nuanced understanding of the motivations and grievances behind such acts, we can foster a more constructive dialogue and build a stronger, more unified nation.
Engagement Resources
- Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC): Tracks hate groups and extremism in the U.S., offering insights into political violence and its root causes.
https://www.splcenter.org - Brennan Center for Justice: Research and policy proposals on combating domestic terrorism while safeguarding democratic values.
https://www.brennancenter.org - The Violence Project: A database and research organization examining the causes and prevention of mass violence, with a focus on political and ideological factors.
https://www.theviolenceproject.org - PEN America: Advocacy for free expression and against hate speech and violence, promoting dialogue in polarized times.
https://pen.org
Wanna stay in-the-know? Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to ‘Keeping Democracy Alive’ by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism.