By Arie Perliger
With an assassination attempt on Donald Trump at a rally in Pennsylvania on July 13, 2024, the U.S. experienced another violent episode in its increasingly polarized politics. Former President Trump, who’s about to formally become the GOP nominee for president in the 2024 election, survived the attempted assassination when, initial reports said, a bullet grazed his ear. But one rally attendee was killed, more spectators were injured and the suspected gunman is also dead. The Conversation’s politics editor, Naomi Schalit, spoke with University of Massachusetts, Lowell, scholar Arie Perliger after the event. Perliger offered insight from his study of political violence and assassinations. Given the stark political polarization in the U.S., Perliger said, “it’s not a surprise that eventually people engage in violence.”
Schalit: When you heard the news, what was the first thing you thought?
Perliger: The first thing that I thought about is that we were basically one inch from a potential civil war. I think that if, indeed, Donald Trump would have suffered fatal injuries today, the level of violence that we witnessed so far will be nothing in comparison to what would have happened in the next couple of months. I think that would have unleashed a new level of anger, frustration, resentment, hostility that we haven’t seen for many, many years in the U.S.
This assassination attempt, at least at this early stage, may validate a strong sense among many Trump supporters and many people on the far right that they are being delegitimized, that they are on the defensive and that there are efforts to basically prevent them from competing in the political process and prevent Trump from returning to the White House.
What we’ve just seen, for many of the people on the far right, fits very well into a narrative that they’ve already been constructing and disseminating for the last few months.
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
Political assassination attempts don’t aim only to kill someone. They have a larger goal, don’t they?
In many ways, assassination attempts bypass the long process of trying to downgrade and defeat political opponents, when there is a sense that even a long political struggle will not be sufficient. Many perpetrators see assassinations as a tool that will allow them to achieve their political objectives in a very quick, very effective way that doesn’t demand a lot of resources or a lot of organization. If we are trying to connect it to what we’ve seen today, I think that many people see Trump as a unicorn, as a unique entity, who in many ways really consumed the entire conservative movement. So by removing him, there’s a sense that that will or may solve the problem.
I think that the conservative movement changed dramatically since 2016, when Trump was first elected, and a lot of the characteristics of Trumpism are actually now fairly popular in different parts of the conservative movement. So even if Trump will decide to retire at some point, I don’t think that Trumpism – as a set of populist ideas – will disappear from the GOP. But I can definitely understand why people who see that as a threat will feel that removing Trump can solve all the problems.
In a study of the causes and impacts of political assassination, you wrote that unless electoral processes can address “the most intense political grievances … electoral competition has the potential to instigate further violence, including the assassinations of political figures.” Is that what you saw in this attempted assassination?
Democracy cannot work if the different parties, the different movements, are not willing to work together on some issues. Democracy works when multiple groups are willing to reach some kind of consensus through negotiations, to collaborate and to cooperate.
What we’ve seen in the last 17 years, basically since 2008 and the rise of the Tea Party movement, is that there’s increasing polarization in the U.S. And the worst part of this polarization is that the American political system became dysfunctional in the sense that we are forcing out any politicians and policymakers who are interested in collaboration with the other side. That’s one thing. Second, people delegitimize leaders who are willing to collaborate with the other side, hence, presenting them as individuals who betrayed their values and political party.
The third part is that people are delegitimizing their political rivals. They transform a political disagreement into a war in which there is no space for working together to address the challenges they agree are facing the nation.
When you combine those three dynamics, you create basically a dysfunctional system where both sides are convinced that it’s a zero-sum game, that it’s the end of the country. It’s the end of democracy if the other side wins.
If both sides are hammering into people again and again that losing an election is the end of the world, then it’s not a surprise that eventually people are willing to take the law into their hands and to engage in violence.
Arie Perliger is Director of Security Studies and Professor of Criminology and Justice Studies at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell.
The Conversation arose out of deep-seated concerns for the fading quality of our public discourse and recognition of the vital role that academic experts could play in the public arena. Information has always been essential to democracy. It’s a societal good, like clean water. But many now find it difficult to put their trust in the media and experts who have spent years researching a topic. Instead, they listen to those who have the loudest voices. Those uninformed views are amplified by social media networks that reward those who spark outrage instead of insight or thoughtful discussion. The Conversation seeks to be part of the solution to this problem, to raise up the voices of true experts and to make their knowledge available to everyone. The Conversation publishes nightly at 9 p.m. on FlaglerLive.
Steve Robinson says
As an academic you have a responsibility to impartially dissect the reasons why, in this case, Trumpers are who they are. But your explanation that these people are angry about being marginalized and shut out of the political process is absurd. Donald Trump, their savior, won the presidency eight years ago, and is likely to win it again; the House of Representatives is currently a GOP-majority branch of government with a leader who states that the Bible is his guidebook to governing; the Supreme Court is firmly in the tank for Trump, and Republican-led state legislature are eagerly turning the clock back to 1960, and making women second-class citizens. So how, exactly, are prototypical white male conservatives not being heard??
I agree with you that Trump is a symptom, not a cause, of the racist, angry xenophobia of the right, but movements await leaders, and Trump gave voice to the hatred infecting millions of Americans as only he could do.
Had that bullet tracked an inch or so to the right I believe we’d have seen some violence, but not civil war. After an obligatory “mourning period,” Americans would have resumed their lives, the GOP would have nominated someone who utters the same garbage as Trump without the unapologetic amorality, and the temperature, as we’ve all been instructed to observe, would drop sharply.
I live in a state that permits anyone with a pulse to carry a gun. And yet I firmly believe that the number of Americans willing to shoot their fellow Americans is thankfully very small–especially not for a corrupt, venal, lying politician.
Sherry says
Right On, Steve!
Like so many academics, it appears Mr. Perliger views social ills through a detached telescope a mile away. Make no mistake, there is a lens on that telescope that gives academic legitimacy to grievances that often grow from human frailties into a weakness ripe for emotional manipulation.
The apparent lack of consideration and analysis regarding major media sources consumed by those who feel disenfranchised, in my opinion, makes Mr. Perliger’s conclusions incomplete, “at best”. In my mind, they are invalid due to this.
In my thinking, there is a huge difference between a movement and a cult . A movement implies motivation based on some amount reason and fact, whereas a cult is founded on negative emotions based in fear. Cult members are often manipulated by emotional triggers. Faith based cults are a prime example.
The MAGA cult is a combination of those who have been emotionally manipulated both by media outlets and often by preachers at the pulpit as well. Which, when you think of it that way, explains why it is almost impossible to sway a MAGA cult member with “credentialed facts”, and why they refuse to move away from media outlets that feed their emotional needs. That fear and hate sustenance is an addiction, no less powerful than many other drugs.
Tired of it says
When you do nothing for years other than spew hate and divisiveness, promote racism and lie to the American public, you reap what you sow.
JimboXYZ says
In other news, charges dropped vs Trump for the documents at Mar-A-Lago.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/15/politics/classified-documents-case-trump-dismissed-aileen-cannon/index.html
Jim says
I guess you didn’t read past the headline. The Trump judge – Cannon – dismissed the case because she (and only her) thinks the special prosecutor was appointed unconstitutionally despite the fact that multiple other courts have summarily dismissed that argument. However, since Cannon is a Republican first and a protector of the courts and constitution a very distant second (as well as being incompetent) she did her penance for Trump and gave him a victory that in no way justifies the fact that he stole secret government documents and went to great efforts to hide them from the government when they came calling. I wouldn’t expect you to grasp that part of the story, though. And, unless Dear Leader Trump is elected in November, the charges will be reinstated and a different judge who actually follows our laws and constitution will be assigned that case. If those things happen, Dear Leader will eventually be found guilty.
Thanks for dropping this into an article about concerns of what would happen if Trump has indeed been severly wounded or killed. As usual, you’re right on point…..
DaleL says
There is a fundamental difference between a cult leader and the leader of a movement.
When the leader of a movement is murdered/killed, such as with Martin Luther King, the movement survives. It frequently will become stronger. The strength comes from the members of the movement.
When a cult leader is murdered/killed, the followers lose purpose. They fall into discord. Violence can occur, but not civil war.
Considering how many Americans are needlessly murdered/killed by the misuse of firearms everyday, why should the very people who fail to protect the people they claim to serve, be provided with so much protection? The shooter used an AR-15 type semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine. A weapon that was originally designed for war. It was designed to kill people.
If anything good comes out of this tragedy, maybe just maybe there will be some meaningful gun control laws passed. It is a tragedy because Corey Comperatore, a firefighter, was murdered. To his friends and family, this was another senseless gun death in America. We need firefighters; I’m not so sure that we need old men running our government.
Tim Buckwalter says
Don’t forget the “elections have consequences” quote of a sitting president when listing root causes of a lack of political cooperation.
Deborah Coffey says
First of all, no one knows if this was a political assassination or not. Second of all, if Trump wins, it will be the end of democracy in America. If Trump loses, there will be “blood in the streets.” Finally, we’ve been 1″ away from civil war since Donald Trump did not accept his 2020 loss to the presidency and continually promoted his BIG LIE.
Brian says
The left-wing looney liberals have been spewing for three years how Trump is a “threat to democracy”. And now, as you know, the real threat to democracy has been exposed – that Bidens inner circle have known all along that he is an incompetent, stuttering stumblebum and have hidden this fact from the public. This is the new BIG LIE, and the end of Joe Biden.
Ray W. says
Aahhh, the deflection of the gullible commenter.
This is basic logic, Brian. Biden’s aids can hide an aging brain from the public and Trump can still be a threat to democracy. These are two separate things. Somehow, you have confused yourself into thinking that proof of one disproves the other. You can be barely right on the Biden issue (he does have an aging brain) and massively wrong on the Trump point.
An aging brain does not automatically mean a threat to democracy. It means an aging brain. An aging brain can be a threat to democracy, but there needs to be more than just an aging brain.
On the other hand, a continuing insurrectionist who promises blood in the streets if he doesn’t win the 2024 presidential election presents a continuing threat to democracy. That he, too, has an aging brain, without more, doesn’t mean much. That Trump’s handlers are hiding his aging brain from the rest of us doesn’t help your point. That you present as an apologist for an insurrectionist says a lot about you.
Once again, this story needs to be told and retold. Years ago, I represented 76-year-old Anna Pehota on a murder charge. I watched the various videos recorded at the scene and recorded during her interrogations. I listened to her many confessions of guilt. I read the incident report, the supplemental reports, and the witness statements. I had at that time some 30 years of experience representing or prosecuting the mentally ill and the intellectually disabled among us. I had talked about these issues with many, many doctors and experts over decades.
I was sufficiently persuaded by some peculiar events in her case to have Mrs. Pehota evaluated by a neuropsychologist who specialized in evaluating aging patients. When I received her finding that Mrs. Pehota was not presenting with evidence of brain injury or damage due to possible dementia or any other form of brain injury or illness, I called the neuropsychologist. She stated simply and succinctly: She has a 77-year-old brain; it isn’t an 18-year-0ld brain. She has evidence of brain decline, but not of brain damage; there was nothing that tested out of the ordinary for a person of her age. The neuropsychologist was saying that it is normal to experience decline at that age. Decline doesn’t prove that there is any injury or damage to the brain.
Since that time, I have read other studies on memory and aging.
I posted a comment months ago on my assessment of an NIH study on memory and aging. There are four recognized facets of memory. Two don’t really decline over time. One of the four reveals measurable declines consistent with aging starting from the about the age of around forty for all of us. People begin to lose recall of certain events; it is normal for them to do so. People, for example, remember that their first day in junior high school occurred, but they begin to lose details from the day. They remember getting married, but some of the tiny details fade away.
A fourth facet of memory begins to decline in one’s sixties and it really begins to slide as one turns 70. This facet of memory loss, again a normal loss due to aging, involves stumbling over dates and times.
None of this means that President Biden suffers from brain injury or damage, but he does exhibit signs of an aging brain. When former President Trump mistakenly identified his accuser as his second wife during a pre-trial deposition, that can be viewed as a sign of an aging or declining brain, and not a sign of brain injury or damage.
To summarize, both of our presidential candidates repeatedly present to the public with signs of aging brains, of decline in memory capacity. Neither presents with signs of brain damage or injury. That you, Brian, would focus on one and minimize the other’s signs of deficits exposes your own deficiencies as an accurate observer of human nature.
As an aside, I learned a long time ago from a different neuropsychologist that a person can test below their present capacity, but never above their capacity. In IQ tests given to children, if a child tests with a 105 IQ one year and several years later, tests at 122, then the IQ is 122, not 105. This is why it is so disappointing for me to read some of the comments posted by JimboXYZ. I know from other of his comments that he can do so much better than he commonly does, but he repeatedly lets the wheels fall off. Somehow, it is OK for him to present as a commenter who is far less capable than he really can be.
Deborah Coffey says
Apparently, you are completely unaware of Joe Biden’s record as POTUS. Read it and weep from 152 American historians. Biden was ranked 14th best president; Trump…dead last. 2024 rankings.
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/19/1232447088/historians-presidents-survey-trump-last-biden-14th#:~:text=But%20that's%20not%20how%20154,Woodrow%20Wilson%20and%20Ronald%20Reagan.
joe says
It is unspeakably sad to realize how this one man – a life-long con man and fraudster, a serial adulterer and sexual predator, a congenital liar, morally bankrupt and a malignant and cruel narcissist has so successfully blinded so many into believing so many lies – his entire campaign is based on a massive lie – Hitler would be proud.
Let not the attempt on his life deter us from speaking the truth about him – he is still a criminal, still an insurrectionist, still an un-American authoritarian – no matter what flowery words he may speak in his “reworked” acceptance speech to the convention. Don’t be fooled – he and his movement remain a grave danger to our country.
Jackson says
trump’s assassination attempt was definitely horrific and is never the way to solve anything…Now let’s get back to discussing Project 2025. trump’s attempted assassination was a huge deflection but time to move on..Biden surrounds himself with competent, capable people..Our country would be safe if anything happened to Biden..Not so sure about trump though.
As a side note, as soon as the shooter was identified as a white Republican the media dropped the story.
Can’t have people facing the facts and truth or holding those responsible accountable. Truly sickening.
Brian says
What a load of crap. This article seemingly purports that this 20-year-old outcast dirtbag is some sort of political intellectual with a dark agenda. All evidence presented so far indicates that he was a creepy loner, who probably spent his time in his parents’ basement with his sticky keyboard, starved for attention. The fact that he was able to carry out his mission, although thankfully unsuccessful, shines a blinding light on government agencies responsible for security, and on the deficiencies of Bidens’ beloved DEI hiring requirements.
Keith Vinnicombe says
The t-shirt Thomas Crooks is wearing in the photograph and the video of him on the roof is from Demolition Ranch called DEMOLITIA. This is a far right gun loving Nazi organization and it’s not being reported by the right wing media. Go to MeidasTouch on YouTube. Shooter at Trump rally identified. For the truth.
We were 1” away from a civil war which was the motive. Just think what the gun toting MAGA nut jobs would have done after a Trump assassination. Thank god Trump was not assassinated. We must get the truth told.
Jim says
It’s a real shame that this article raises alarms about the Trumpers getting violent if Trump has indeed been severely wounded or killed. It’s as if they aren’t already violent and confrontational now. All I hear from them is attacks on Democrats that hint or propose a violent response. The Project 2025 statement was there will be a conservative revolution “if Democrats will allow it peacefully”. So that implies the Democrats are pushing violence when in fact it’s a Republican thing. There were no liberals participating on January 6 nor at Charlottesville.
I have no idea what the motive for this guy’s attack on Trump but all I see from the Trumpers is the willingness to respond with violence.
What a wonderful political system we have…..
Ray W. says
Hello Jim,
The WSJ is reporting the following:
“Thomas Matthew Crooks flew the drone on a programmed flight path earlier in the day on July 13 to scour the Butler Farm Show grounds ahead of Trump’s ill-fated rally, the officials said. The predetermined path, the officials added, suggests Crooks flew the drone more than once as he researched and scoped out the event site.”
“Police had become suspicious of Crooks more than an hour earlier, when officers saw him milling about the edges of the rally with a range finder and a backpack.”
“Crooks, described by friends as very smart yet withdrawn, began researching the site shortly after the Trump campaign announced the rally on July 3, and registered for the event on July 7, officials said. He visited the farm show grounds a few days later to scope it out.”
“On July 13, officials said, he returned with a pair of homemade bombs that appeared to be designed to be set off by remote control, as they were fitted with a receiver like the kind used to set off fireworks remotely,…”
Make of this reporting as you will.
Me? I continue to lean toward a crime of opportunity.
Ray W. says
The Washington Post concludes an article about Mr. Crooks with a quote from a University of Mississippi sociologist who studies political violence:
“Nothing in Crooks’ reported profile seems out of the ordinary: no extremist ideology, no mental health issues, no struggles at school, no family issues,” she said. “Instead, Crooks appears to have been a ‘normal’ young man in today’s America.”
Has it become “normal” for Americans to form fantasies about killing other people? Have we reorganized our expectations to include violent fantasies into the realm of the “normal?” To me, this is one of the scarier comments by a political sociologist I have read in some time.
If we have normalized violent fantasies, is it a stretch to believe that those who so cavalierly spit out hateful commentary really want to carry them out, if given the opportunity?
Is it wrong the believe that when a local Republican politician asks radio listeners when would it be time to start beheading Democrats? If given the opportunity, would he really kill in the name of political partisanship. No one can deny he uttered his fantasy to the radio audience.
Would our governor really slit throats were he ever given the opportunity to act out his rich fantasy life?
Would our former president really crush immigrants as if they were vermin, were he ever given the opportunity to act out his rich fantasy life?
Would the current Republican candidate for North Carolina’s Lt. Governor post really act on his comment that “some people need killing”, were he ever able to act on his rich fantasy life?
What of the Senator who urged travel-impaired motorists to throw protestors from bridges?
What of the Republican Senate candidate who urged rallygoers to strap on a Glock before leaving to vote?
Has fantasizing about murder become ‘normal?”
James says
I think your original assessment (and overall approach to the matter) of the situation elsewhere here was correct Ray.
Basically to consider it a random act, a crime of opportunity on the part of the shooter, until (if ever) there’s hard evidence to the contrary.
Consider even the possibility that Trump wasn’t even the target… perhaps someone else in the audience was.
Perhaps the fireman?
Or perhaps it was a Los Vegas type of situation? Looked at from another perspective, perhaps the only difference between this situation and that of the mass shooting in Vegas a few years back is that there WAS armed secret service snipers at the ready to quickly act.
But this sort of speculation is the job of the FBI… I still trust these folks.
Just say’n.
Tom D Hutson says
SCARE TACTICS, and what a load of BS being spewed by scholar Arie Perliger. The only thing this piece of garbage does is instill fear into the American Public, if this narcissist loses the election again. Let’s be sure to get this straight, the shooter was a REGISTERED Republican! Oh, and yes he did send in $15.00 to some organization, the news would have you believe it was a “democratic leaning organization.” Wow!
As for the “CIVIL” war, not likely, this guy is a convicted felon and way too many negative adjectives to count. He will lose this election again and there will be no civil war. Just a lot more crying on how corrupt our election process is. For those of us Americans voting against him, remember all these new voting laws were passed by the Republicans. WOW, watch them dam illegals voting again, must be the ones that crossed the border, hey what happened to the border wall? Mexican peso must have tanked.