Why did the sitting United States president forego a funeral for a murdered lawmaker in his own nation a lawmaker whose murder, in the words of Minnesota’s top federal prosecutor, was nothing less than an assassination? President Trump’s no-show at the memorial service for former Minnesota Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman and her husband, who were murdered in a politically motivated attack, sent a message that resonated far beyond the confines of the church. While President Biden and Vice President Harris stood shoulder to shoulder with mourning Minnesotans, Trump was seen golfing with Republican leaders and Truth-Social posting, asking, “WHY ARE THE DEMOCRATS ALWAYS ROOTING AGAINST AMERICA???”
This wasn’t merely a lost photo opportunity. It was an instant that could have marked unity in a nation that, as historian Timothy Kneeland described it, is maybe, at an all-time high, at least certainly in the last 50 years, for political violence. As the people assembled to grieve, the ghastly facts of the assault appeared: the gunman, posing as an officer, had a “hit list with nearly 70 names,” the majority of them Democratic lawmakers or abortion activists, CNN reported. The list included Rep. Ilhan Omar and Sen. Tina Smith.
The suspect, according to friends and in his own sermons on social media, had previously voted for Trump. The symbolism of the President’s absence was unmistakable. At a time when threats against public officials, judges, and school board members have reached new heights, politicians have a special duty to calm the temperature, not heighten it. “Political violence has no place in our country and should be condemned and prosecuted in our communities,” Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-Canandaigua, said in an unusual bipartisan call for accountability. Still, rather than bridging fissures, Trump’s public words went off on a tangent of blame, insinuating that Minnesota’s Democratic governor was somehow to blame for the tragedy: “I think the governor of Minnesota is so whacked out. I’m not calling him. Why would I call him? The guy doesn’t have a clue. He’s a mess.”
This type of language isn’t merely divisive it’s perilous. As Kneeland cautioned, Words have meanings, and people say, ‘Well, I’m just joking,’ but you need to think about what that might mean to someone who doesn’t understand the context of your so-called joke. The effect of the normalization of inflammatory rhetoric by political leaders can be measured. Research indicates that when leaders demonize the opposition, it creates a context for violence to become plausible for individuals who are in search of belonging or purpose in a polarized environment. The Carnegie Endowment states, “Dehumanizing and denigrating rhetoric that normalizes violence or threats against some groups turns that sense of fear and anger into a target by making certain groups appear to be both threatening and, at the same time, vulnerable.”
America has seen its share of political violence. The 1960s and 1970s were filled with waves of far-left and far-right assassinations and bombings. But what is new, as University of Chicago’s Robert Pape explains, is that the violence is becoming more premeditated and mainstream. “We are in a historically high period of American political violence,” Pape said to The Guardian, describing this as the country’s “era of violent populism.” There have been recent attacks on politicians, the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol, attempts on presidents’ lives, and targeted violence towards minority groups all indicators of a society under tremendous pressure.
The risk factors are piling up: highly competitive elections, partisan division built around identity, winner-take-all electoral systems, and eroding institutional guardrails. As the Journal of Democracy puts it, “politicians have the match to light the tinder.” When either side’s leaders fan fears, point fingers, or don’t unequivocally condemn violence, they encourage those on the margins to act.
But history and research bring a glimmer of hope. When leaders coalesce publicly and loudly to denounce violence, it is a difference-maker. Pape contends, The absolute number one thing that should happen … is that president Trump and governor Newsom do a joint video condemning political violence. It’s not a matter of obliterating differences or dismissing policy fights. It’s a matter of affirming, in times of crisis, that the principles of democracy and the dignity of life outweigh party.
Under the headlines, Americans are less polarized on matters than they believe. The Carnegie Endowment points out that “American voters are less ideologically polarized than they think they are, and that misperception is greatest for the most politically engaged people.” The actual divide is affective, driven by politicians who gain from having their base angry and fearful.
During the days that followed the Minnesota attack, unity pleas rang out from across the aisle. “Democrats and Republicans need to be united in this moment to put an end to the violence,” said Rep. Joe Morelle. And the test now is whether those with the largest microphones will meet the test or continue to stir the embers.
