A Uniquely Perilous Moment in U.S. Politics

The far right is already eyeing these developments with ever more effusive concern over social media. The movement will almost certainly be provoked by the attempt into actively assuming the mantle of the Republican candidate’s ultimate guardians; they will likely try to take his safety in their own hands, given the blatant failure of the authorities to do so. Violence in this context could be either preemptive or vengeful, perhaps similar to the brutality embodied by acquitted vigilante killer Kyle Rittenhouse, who in August 2020 shot three people (two fatally) protesting police brutality. Unlike the recent spate of politically motivated mass shootings in the United States that have been linked to white supremacists, this targeting of specific individuals heralds yet another dimension of what has become a uniquely American form of violence, as gunmen wield semiautomatic assault rifles with high-velocity and high capacity magazines.

The problem at this perilous moment is that both violent extremes see an advantage in setting the United States ablaze. Beyond just dissatisfaction with both presidential candidates, there is also a prevalent sense on both extremes that the political system is sclerotic, corrupt, and ineffective, thus leading to the conviction that violence is needed to pull the system down. Adherents of this so-called “accelerationist” strategy insist that even small acts of violence can spark a broader conflagration, greatly increasing the risk of follow-on attacks. That both the far-left and the far-right share this belief is as unprecedented as it is unimaginable in the country that the world looks up as a citadel of democracy. At a time when a recent NPR-PBS NewsHour-Marist poll found that 1 in 5 people surveyed agreed with the statement, “Americans may have to resort to violence in order to get the country back on track,” it is too soon to tell whether both Trump and Biden’s respective calls for national unity can supersede this dangerous trend affecting both sides of the country’s political spectrum.

Hoffman and Ware conclude:

The problem at this perilous moment is that both violent extremes see an advantage in setting the United States ablaze. Beyond just dissatisfaction with both presidential candidates, there is also a prevalent sense on both extremes that the political system is sclerotic, corrupt, and ineffective, thus leading to the conviction that violence is needed to pull the system down. Adherents of this so-called “accelerationist” strategy insist that even small acts of violence can spark a broader conflagration, greatly increasing the risk of follow-on attacks. That both the far-left and the far-right share this belief is as unprecedented as it is unimaginable in the country that the world looks up as a citadel of democracy. At a time when a recent NPR-PBS NewsHour-Marist poll found that 1 in 5 people surveyed agreed with the statement, “Americans may have to resort to violence in order to get the country back on track,” it is too soon to tell whether both Trump and Biden’s respective calls for national unity can supersede this dangerous trend affecting both sides of the country’s political spectrum.

….

The biggest question is whether this is, in fact, the beginning of what could be the most violent presidential race in the history of the country. Never before has the electorate been presented with two such singularly unpopular choices, which only creates an environment where frustration, perhaps coupled with mental instability, might bring to the surface individuals emboldened to take matters into their own hands. Extremists in the United States might see the failed assassination as a green light to “neutralize”—in the Secret Service’s parlance describing their handling of the shooting—what they will now see as serial threats to the leading candidate and former president.