The assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk earlier this month on a college campus in Utah was the latest and perhaps most graphic example of a disturbing trend of recent political violence in the United States.
The murder of Minnesota Democratic state lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, in June. An arson fire at Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s house in April. The shooting death of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson on a New York sidewalk in December. Before that, the hammer attack that nearly killed Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul, at their San Francisco home, and two attempted assassinations of President Trump. The events have shaken people on the left and the right.
Related Articles
Lowering the temperature: Tips for transcending our polarized politics
Secret Service dismantles telecom threat around UN capable of crippling cell service in NYC
Trump cancels White House meeting with Schumer and Jeffries despite risk of a government shutdown
Man accused of trying to assassinate Trump at golf course tells jury he didn’t intend to kill
Trump in speech to UN says world body ‘not even coming close to living up’ to its potential
Many Americans have condemned the attacks. But some have not. The biggest divide in support for political violence may not be ideological, but generational, ongoing research suggests.
A survey of more than 4,100 people conducted last year by a California State Long Beach professor found that 93% of baby boomers and 86% of Generation X members say violence is never acceptable to stop political speech, even the most offensive speech. But only 71% of millennials and 58% of Generation Z agreed.
“The wrong conclusion to draw, of course, is that millions of young people are celebrating acts of political violence,” said Kevin Wallsten, a professor of political science who led the survey.
RELATED: The data doesn’t back up Trump’s claims that the left is more violent
“But we should still be concerned,” he said. “Everybody can feel the political temperature rising, and we are being pulled in different directions as a country. We collectively need to think of ways of addressing the deep disaffection that is underneath it.”
Wallsten said leaders at universities, the media and politicians need to “turn down the temperature” by emphasizing that democracy depends on listening to other viewpoints.
“Partisans follow their leaders,” he said. “If you have an unambiguous and widely repeated message that speech is not violence and the appropriate response to offensive speech is more speech, that can start to move the needle.”
Wallsten’s survey, which is part of an ongoing study and will form the basis of a book he is writing, found the same results for young people (age 18 to 26) who are conservative and liberal. And there was little difference between those not enrolled in universities and those who are in college — where Gaza protests and other battles over speech, including during appearances by Kirk and other conservative speakers at California universities — have roiled campuses.
“Charlie Kirk came to our campus in the spring,” he said. “My students were there. One of them said, ‘We should just punch everybody who is in attendance.’ It was a real moment of reflection for me. I thought something has really changed.”
Other surveys have shown similar age-related differences.
A Reuters poll in December found 41% of people aged 18 to 29 said the killing of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson was “acceptable” or “somewhat acceptable,” while only 9% of people 60 to 69 did. Luigi Mangione, 27, the man charged with killing Thompson, whose company has faced criticism for denying coverage, became something of a folk hero in some TikTok videos, and supporters have appeared outside his trial.
The man charged with killing Kirk, allegedly over his conservative viewpoints, is 22, and Trump’s slain would-be assassin in Pennsylvania was 20. But those charged in a second Trump assassination attempt and the Hortman and Pelosi attacks were in their 40s and 50s.
One hopeful note, said Dr. Garen Wintemute, director of the Centers for Violence Prevention at UC Davis, is that although his surveys have shown similar trends where more young people than older people voice general support for political violence, only about 2% to 3% say they would consider personally acting on it.
Wintemute said such attitudes have likely always been around.
“Look at all the videos from the 1960s,” he said. “There aren’t a lot of old people throwing Molotov cocktails in those videos.”
Wintemute remembered a protest when he was a student at Yale in 1970 over the Vietnam War and Black Panther leader Bobby Seale’s prosecution, which had National Guard troops with fixed bayonets clashing with his classmates.
“I still have the tear gas canister that I found outside my dorm window,” he said.
“Young people are less patient; they want to see answers quickly,” said Wintemute, who also is an emergency room doctor. “They are passionate. They have less to lose in terms of jobs and families and homes. Many haven’t learned the importance of gradualism and that change doesn’t often happen overnight. All young people learn that. I certainly did. None of that is unique to this moment. It is part of growing up.”
Wintemute said social media worsens polarization. He said Trump should try and heal the country, similar to the way former President George W. Bush attended a mosque after the 9-11 attacks.
“We have a president who famously said of protesters, ‘Can’t we just shoot them in the legs?’” he said. “What leaders say matters. We have a president whose rhetoric encourages violence. There is concern that things may continue to accelerate.”
The current generation has two major differences with prior generations: social media and COVID.
During the COVID pandemic, many young people came of age isolated, noted Wallsten of CSU Long Beach. They faced traumatic events, from the killing of George Floyd by police to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by a mob loyal to Trump. A trend in classrooms by some instructors to embrace identity politics in recent years encouraged “safe spaces” and punished “micro-aggressions.” Too often, verbal disagreements have been compared to actual violence, he said, reducing tolerance for other viewpoints.
Social media has amplified and spread misinformation and division, Wallsten added.
“Algorithms feed people a steady diet of content designed to infuriate them and emotionally activate them,” he said. “It is an echo chamber and has a siloing effect. Influencers build their audience by being outrageous.”
Some leaders have attempted to turn down the heat after Kirk’s killing on Sept. 10 at Utah Valley University.
At a discussion at USC on Monday, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger urged college Republicans and college Democrats to find some issues they can agree on and work together.
“You would be an example for the nation and other universities, how you get together, and don’t see the other side as the enemy, or ‘fight fire with fire’ or declare war on each other,” the former governor said. “You can show leadership, and get together and set an example.”
Kirk’s killing shook many college students in California.
Josue Salvador, a civil engineering major at San Francisco State, where Kirk visited in May, said he agreed with some of Kirk’s views and disagreed with others. He said he was troubled after his death to see some students celebrating.
“I remember seeing a video of him saying that he encourages people with different opinions to speak to each other,” he said. “In friendships, if you don’t speak, you start separating. In a marriage, if you don’t speak, divorce happens. And in a nation, if you’re not speaking, then that can lead to worse things.”
Bay Area News Group reporter Ethan Varian contributed to this report.
