American politics have become a place of internal warfare; this time, the weapons aren’t metaphorical. As the country matures, its citizens are reverting back to violence to answer their emotions, and the political faces of this indignation haven’t made the legislation to keep themselves safe.
The recent violent attack in Nancy Pelosi’s home could be foreshadowing an election season with no wins. Experts warn Americans about the uncanny increase of political violence and threats to leaders since the 1980s and the drastic spike of violence in the past five years. The current climate has unknowingly rewarded this radical behavior, and the holes in legislation have made it even easier.
When aggressive political statements became popularized in the 70s, threats were carried out with less extreme partisan polarization as members of both sides believed that violence passes bills. But as incidents of aggression grew rampant since Trump’s presidency in 2016, the GOP’s statistics make it difficult for partisanship in political violence to be overlooked.
Politically grounded threats in 2021 skyrocketed to 9,625 incidents, following the year’s commencement with the January 6th attack on the Capitol. Former president Donald Trump was no innocent bystander to the unhinged brigade on the 6th as he so wisely advised his supporters to “fight like hell!”
And as 2021 passed, its eulogy was sure to mention that far-right terror is now the most prevalent ideological threat in the US. 2022 chose to carry on this legacy, as the incident in Nancy Pelosi’s home on October 30th backed.
Paul Pelosi, whose only crime was to be married to an American politician, faced near-fatal punishment by hammer. The attacker’s online blog includes, but is not limited to, antisemitic, anti-Democratic, and racist words. What he chanted at the site was a clear parallel to what others questioned whilst storming the Capitol: “Where is Nancy?”
The American political system spoke the loudest in its response.
Select political leaders, mostly under the Republican spotlight, chose not to respond or to minimize the attack. Governor Youngskin of Virginia responded, “There’s no room for violence anywhere, but we’re going to send [Nancy Pelosi] to be with [Paul Pelosi] in California.” To translate: violence isn’t the answer– an overly-expressed commonality we’ve arguably beat the meaning out of. Other politicians offered similar condolences, still without drawing any lines of condemnation.
Sources like the New York Times preach that in order to put an end to political violence, leader rhetoric is key. Radicals are most convinced by the approval of a trusted leader; however, as we have seen, right-winged leaders are significantly less likely to speak up to condemn.
The media’s conversation of the incident highlighted weaknesses in the security provided to government officials. It seems this general consensus can be taken as a warning to the public about future decisions backing a new increase of money allocation to government security, instead of attacking the issue at its larger root.
Really, what political leaders fear is angry citizens with weapons. Yet in order to protect themselves from the army of guns, they are strengthening their own armies with even bigger guns. This solution opens the curtain to the government's hypocrisy behind the base-level propaganda that violence is not the answer, as well as their negligence to solve the real, foundational problem hurting the safety of the grander population they serve.
When forced to face the unsafe perspective of many lower-income individuals in crime-infested neighborhoods, the collective answer of our leaders is to fight with money– something that this demographic cannot do. To protect all members of the public by regulating guns would be to anger the group of people holding the weapons in charge of these political terrorisms. It seems America went too far by putting deadly weapons in the hands of its most impulsive citizens.
The radical that invaded Pelosi's home may have used a household object rather than a gun; however, the foundation of this situation is not foreign. With documented credentials of hateful beliefs, whether political or not, regulation can easily prevent more of these situations.
San Francisco, CA, the location of Nancy and Paul's residency, is currently faced with an abundance of uncontrolled crime, drug activity, poverty, etc. Thus, this behavior is to be expected daily outside of the affluent neighborhood protecting the Pelosi residence. Nancy’s answer of thanking the quick responders and “lifesaving medical care” is a privilege unknown to the rest of her own community.
The overall response shines a light on a larger issue of the backward functioning of the American government's thought process.
Communities are more polarized than ever before between Democrats and Republicans, largely due to the extreme backlash of citizens and unpredictable leaders who have set the standards of hostility. American Democracy is now an intense competition of passion and leadership that feeds off of contesting opinions.
Primary elections occurring this November have an unprecedented number of important decisions being made on extremely sensitive topics for the two groups.
With the tradition of war-like reactions we are used to, who’s to say what could happen next? The fate of these patterns depends on redefining the standard of democracy. America’s reversed routine of dealing with issues like this has made this a daunting task this battle season.
Acceptance, even in the form of a lack of disapproval, flames the flames of hate, and I agree with all the points that you made. If republican leaders were courageous enough to speak out against conspiracy theories that are discriminatory and dangerous, at the risk of losing some extremist followers, our country would be a much better, and safer place. It makes me curious to see if leadership will be stronger in Gen Z, after seeing the damage that weak leaders can allow, or if it will simply entice more greedy people to positions of power.
I agree and the main thing that keeps violent Neo-Nazi groups in tact is support from their leaders. Whenever attacks like this happen people act like it is a mystery when in reality they are usually well-planned to garner a reaction. Especially with the pandemic, many people lost important social contact so children and teens as young as middle school age looking for companionship find it in dangerous predatory adults online. The rise of alt-right groups after Trump's presidency is not a coincidence but was strategic because it allowed these cult-like groups to have platforms to form and indoctrinate more and more young members.