by Jeremiah Doxey

The founding of civilization marked political violence as a horrific issue that each society must confront. The existence of political violence, which is on the minds of many Americans, has been brought to the forefront with the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk. While the main motivation of the suspect remains unknown, in the age of social media and educational advancement, many have found themselves with this term, political violence, but lacking sufficient knowledge of what it is. This discussion pertains to political violence; it will not focus on Charlie Kirk, but rather the long history of political violence in the United States from various agents or organizations, and the theory surrounding why political violence happens.

The unique economic, political, and social aspect of a society comes into play to shape a nation’s social climate and the scale of violence experienced in their respective society. To discuss political violence and understand where it comes from, there must be a consensus on what political violence is. The most common consensus is that the use of force to achieve or resist a political, sociological, or economic objective constitutes political violence.

Through this definition, we see political violence on a varying scale of what acts of political violence are committed against whom and the acts’ legitimacy as seen by their government or surrounding countries. For example, in the 1700s, two big events encapsulating both sides of the spectrum of political violence happened. 

The first event analyzed and documented by Ebsco Knowledge Advantage (Vanessa Vaughn) was enacted in 1740 in the colony of South Carolina, formalizing its first response to the Stono uprising against slavery by slaves codifying “The Slave Codes of South Carolina”  to quell fears of future slave rebellions with the legal legitimacy of the South Carolina colony and later legal backing of the freshly formed United States of America in 1776. 

However, in the same century, with no legal legitimacy, the same colonies took up arms in Boston against unfair taxation, which led to the birth of our nation. On the one hand, with no legal authority or justification that our nation’s forefathers fought for the independence of our nation from the English monarchy, which many would say was the correct thing to do. On the other hand, with legal backing, the southern colonies and later states legalized political violence to maintain the political status quo of slavery in the southern states, which is morally inconsistent. This same inconsistency allows political violence to breed and become an option of action.

Having discussed political violence, we now must go on to why political violence occurs. The best answer to this question comes from two quotes from Martin Luther King Jr, “America loves a Negative Peace” and “a riot is the voice of the unheard” from ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’ and his speech “The Other America”. In both quotes, we see the core components of what’s driving political violence in America specifically. To elaborate, ‘Negative Peace’ refers to the absence of direct or overt physical violence and war; however, it lacks the justice and equity of Positive Peace. ‘Positive peace‘ is the integration of humanity, as coined by its creator, Johan Gutenberg, in Transcend Peace 2003. We also have one of the best examples of the quote being referenced already, that being the Boston Tea Party or “Taxation without representation.” While these are not all the reasons why political violence happens, these may encapsulate the main stressors that lead individuals to commit political violence.

Furthermore, in political theory, “safety valve theory” popularized by Frederick Turner Jackson explained that a mechanism, either economically or politically, can be used to release pressure from public discontentment to prevent more extreme forms of violence or other forms of discontentment. These safety valves come in many forms, some arguing that our election and First Amendment, and mental health services are some examples of these safety valves. 

The arrest of Rümeysa Öztürk for her co-authoring of an op-ed on the United States’ historic disruption of social organizations exposed in the 1971 COINTELPRO leak is no coincidence to me and others, and is evidence of a crackdown on these safety valves. In addition to the lack of advancement into modern-day safety valves, such as mental health and community-based programs, it leads to some feeling the horrible need to commit political violence.

Safety valves, however, are not the only way to prevent political violence. Additionally, we must hold our government accountable, starting at a local level and moving up to those in federal positions. The increasing use of hateful and divisive rhetoric is something we have witnessed throughout history, used by hate groups like the KKK and authoritarian/totalitarian regimes to divide and conquer their supposed enemies. We must become critical of hateful speech and recognize that free speech comes with a responsibility to hold those accountable who would use speech to incite violence, fear, and division. 

With sites broadcasting and networking sites like YouTube, Twitch, and more seeing a rise in hate speech, a late reply is as bad as no reply. In the same way that enticing a riot is taken, we must take the same approach with hate speech as we work forward towards the answers to this. We must also work on how much we understand each other and how unified we are. 

With the various bombings of abortion clinics to the shooting of clubs and schools, we should increase how well people can access mental health and overall health, and at what point should we as a society intervene when someone risks public safety or individual safety. And finally, we must reverse the culture of anti-intellectualism that has been taking root over the past few decades. While these are not destined to fix all our problems, progress is the act of putting one foot in front of the other to reach your destination.