By Nicarlyle Hanchard / The Jambar
Within the past decade, there have been reports of an increase in what some would describe as “political violence.” However, defining this type of violence can be difficult.
Rachel Kleinfeld, senior fellow in the Carnegie Democracy, Conflict and Governance Program, defined political violence in her 2021 article “The Rise of Political Violence in the U.S.” as “physical harm or intimidation that affects who benefits from or can participate fully in political, economic, or sociocultural life.”
Through her definition, Kleinfeld stated that violence could also be “catalyzed by predictable social events.”
Along those lines, Richard Rogers, professor of criminal justice at Youngstown State University, said defining this type of violence is sometimes difficult, as it may vary based on an individual’s definition of politics.
“I think we’re clear on what violence would be — it’s some form of harm or injury to people. What makes it political depends on your definition of politics,” Rogers said. “We want it to mean specifically partisan politics, but right now, at this point in time, politics, the weaponization of topics, is not happening just in the political realm — it’s spilling over into other realms.”
Adam Fuller, associate professor of political science and director of the Center for Judaic and Holocaust Studies, said regardless of one’s political views, if violence is used to achieve their goals, it would be considered political violence.
“Political violence is the use of violence to achieve political aims, political objectives. … Typically, [it’s] done to supersede the democratic process,” Fuller said. “Instead of trying to win over people’s minds and votes, [it’s done] to harm political enemies.”
Rogers, researches violence and social media with a focus on platforms that host extremism and misinformation. He said health, religion and gender also experience political weaponization.
He said the changing nature of political violence makes it difficult to settle on a definition and difficult to determine whether or not there is an increase in said violence.
Through his research, Rogers said there has been a noted increase in radicalization on social media platforms. He said the language has become more harmful and, as research shows, some of this language can be found in the manifestos of active shooters. Generally, Rogers said it remains unclear whether or not radicalized, toxic speech transfers into violence.
“We also know that there are communities forming online in private spaces, so we obviously don’t know as much about those, and those show up after the fact,” Rogers said. “An incident will occur and then someone will then look into the person’s background, and they will see they’ve been communicating in these private spaces.”
However, Fuller said the data shows an increase in political violence. He also said he thinks society has become increasingly accepting of this type of expression.
“I think that there has been [an increase in political violence], it certainly looks that way on paper. The data seems to be pointing in that direction,” Fuller said. “More importantly, there is an increase in public acceptance of violence as a solution to political problems — this is more so the case with [Generation] Z.”
In 2024, the Bipartisan Policy Center conducted a survey on a Gen Z democratic revolution and found that 56% of Gen Z accepted violence against elected officials. For this survey, Gen Z participants were ages 18-27.
Through Rogers’ research on toxic online discourse, he said he’s noticed pushback on the radicalization from members of this age group.
“There are some people who are pushing back on this, and I’m specifically going to say we’re hearing late teens, early 20s,” Rogers said. “We’re seeing some things that they are now looking at the situation, and they are seeing that discourse has been weaponized, and it doesn’t need to be weaponized, and they’re starting to call out their elders,” Rogers said.
Kleinfeld stated in her article that along partisan lines, if leaders condemn violence in their own parties, supporters would conform.
“Experiments using quotes from [former President Joe] Biden and [President Donald] Trump show that leaders’ rhetoric has the power to de-escalate and deter violence — if they are willing to speak against their own side,” Kleinfeld stated.
Amy Acton, Ohio gubernatorial nominee, was allegedly attacked at the Canfield Fair on Sept. 7. Regarding initial responses to the incident, and in support of Kleinfeld’s point, Rogers said the incident’s narrative has been weaponized by both supporters and opponents alike.
“If you look at the discussion, there are people who are not Amy Acton supporters who are saying that this [incident] was made up, fabricated, that the person there did not have a weapon — just these things that are way off the mark,” Rogers said. “Similarly, we’re seeing some other comments from Amy Acton supporters who are saying, ‘Oh, this clearly was an attack on Amy Acton — who is walking around with weapons and going to political events?’”
Though Fuller said he believes there is an increase in political violence, and Rogers believes there is an increase in radicalization, both issues remain a concern to researchers and citizens alike.
