Hateful rhetoric leads to violent acts, but America does not have to be this way

In the aftermath of recent political assassinations and violence, experts are increasingly pointing to a dangerous escalation in inflammatory rhetoric across the American political landscape, drawing historical parallels to previous eras of political violence and warning of potential consequences for democratic stability.

The assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025, has intensified scrutiny on the relationship between political speech and real-world violence.

Many of the commentators are neglecting America’s strength is found not in fear, but in resolve.

Former Alabama Senator Doug Jones explicitly connected Kirk’s gruesome killing to historical patterns, noting that the “us versus them” language of segregationists like George Wallace and Bull Connor “didn’t make violence possible, it made violence inevitable.”

Jones argued that repetition of dangerous, mostly false narratives “radicalizes” audiences and creates conditions where violence becomes likely: “We have got to meet the dangers we have in today’s society with that same clarity—that hateful rhetoric leads to violent acts” but he missed one important point.

The reality is that Americans are far more secure and responsible when it comes to political violence than they often believe.

While online threats against members of Congress soared to nearly 9,500 in 2024, actual political violence remains exceptionally rare. Based on extensive work in violence prevention, it’s clear that most online agitators are not seeking violence—they’re seeking influence, money, and power.

Historical Parallels and Escalating Violence

Current patterns of political violence show concerning similarities to earlier turbulent periods in American history. The 1960s and 1970s witnessed significant political violence, including the 1972 shooting of Alabama Governor George Wallace during a presidential campaign stop. According to historical accounts, 1972 alone saw over 1,900 domestic bombings in the United States.

Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, notes that the United States is currently in a “historically high period of American political violence” that he terms an “era of violent populism,” the worst in approximately 50 years.

Pape’s research has found alarming levels of support for political violence across the political spectrum, with about 40% of Democrats supporting the “use of force” to remove then-President Donald Trump from the presidency and about 25% of Republicans supporting military intervention to stop protests against Trump’s agenda.

The Mechanisms of Radicalization

Experts point to several factors contributing to this dangerous climate.

According to Barbara Walter of UC San Diego, political violence becomes more likely under four conditions: “when democracy is declining rapidly, when societies are divided by race, religion or ethnicity, when political leaders tolerate or encourage violence, and when citizens have easy access to guns.”

She notes that “The United States checks all four boxes and none of them are getting better.” 

Sean Westwood of Dartmouth’s Polarization Research Lab emphasizes that while actual support for political violence remains low (fewer than two percent of Americans believe political murder is acceptable), there is a profound misperception: “Americans estimate nearly a third of their political opponents support partisan murder.”

This creates a “phantom enemy” that makes the country feel more dangerous than it actually is.

Walter also highlights the role of technology in radicalization: “The radicalization pipeline runs through a handful of American tech companies that remain almost entirely unregulated.”

She suggests that curbing algorithms that amplify conspiracy theories, disinformation, and hate could weaken the pipeline feeding violent extremism.

Political Responses and Free Speech Debates

The political response to recent violence has further complicated the situation.

Attorney General Pam Bondi faced significant backlash from both conservative and liberal circles after suggesting the Justice Department would target broadly defined “hate speech” following Kirk’s killing.

Bondi initially stated: “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech. And there is no place—especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie—in our society.” 

She promised that the Justice Department would “absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.” 

These remarks drew immediate criticism from free speech advocates across the political spectrum.

Conservative voices were particularly vocal, with radio host Erick Erickson writing: “Our Attorney General is apparently a moron. ‘There’s free speech and then there is hate speech.’ No ma’am. That is not the law.”

Bondi later clarified her position on social media, stating: “Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime.”

The Attorney General cited specific federal laws that criminalize threats of violence while acknowledging that “free speech protects ideas, debate, even dissent, but it does NOT and will NEVER protect violence.” 

The debate was further complicated by the fact that Kirk himself had been a vocal opponent of hate speech restrictions.

In a May 2024 social media post, Kirk wrote: “Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free.”

Cycles of Violence and Retribution

Experts warn that responses to political violence can create dangerous cycles of retribution.

Joel Busher, professor of political sociology at Coventry University, notes: “Political violence often begets more political violence, as we have seen in the U.S., setting in motion a vicious cycle.”

Busher cautions against framing violence as coming from only one segment of society: “This is not a problem of one violent movement, but of a social and political system that, as a whole, is increasingly conducive to violence.”

This warning appears relevant given the responses to Kirk’s assassination. Vice President JD Vance urged supporters: “When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out. And hell, call their employer.” 

Conservative activists have launched “name and shame” campaigns targeting individuals who celebrated Kirk’s death online, resulting in numerous firings.

Some of the people identified made comments that neither celebrated the killing nor disparaged the victim, such as Michael Keaton, who condemned the assassination and expressed sympathy for Kirk’s family, but noted the irony of a gun control opponent being shot dead.

During a 2021 speech at Minnesota State University, Kirk referred to George Floyd as a “scumbag” while discussing the unarmed citizen’s death. He added, “Now, does that mean he deserves to die? That’s two totally different things — of course not”

Kirk claimed he was offering “context and nuance” about Floyd’s death that “no one dares to say out loud.”

Kirk falsely suggested that Floyd’s death was caused by a drug overdose rather than police actions focused on alleged criminal history in claims later described by the Associated Press as “an avalanche of aspersions and debunked claims.”

Now, Keaton faces condemnation for pointing out the irony, after Kirk explicitly stated that some deaths are an acceptable price for upholding the Second Amendment and armed citizenry. 

He compared this trade-off to automotive fatalities, arguing that both are inevitable costs of cherished freedoms. His exact quote was: “I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”

Pointing out the irony is not disrespectful toward Kirk, it is a simple truth.

Kirk rejected calls for strict gun control laws, such as banning assault weapons or high-capacity magazines. Instead, he focused on raising children in two-parent families —like the conservative Republican household in which his alleged assassin was nurtured—reflecting a belief that guns are not a root cause of violence.

Pathways Forward

Experts suggest several approaches to reduce political violence. Barbara Walter emphasizes the need to address algorithmic amplification of extremist content. Clionadh Raleigh of the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data project advocates for “sustained investment in security, social resilience, and public health.”

Raleigh notes that most political violence in the U.S. comes from “individual attacks without a partisan motivation or trend” rather than organized movements. This suggests targeted interventions might be more effective than broad crackdowns.

Robert Pape has suggested that bipartisan condemnation of violence could be powerful: “The absolute number one thing that should happen is that President Trump and Governor Newsom do a joint video condemning political violence.”

As the United States approaches future electoral cycles, experts warn that the risk of violence may increase. Walter notes: “Violence also tends to spike around elections, which means the coming contests in 2026 and 2028 are poised to be flashpoints.”

The challenge for American democracy will be addressing the underlying conditions fueling political violence while protecting fundamental rights—a balancing act that has become increasingly difficult in an era of deep polarization and escalating rhetoric.

The overwhelming majority of Americans reject political violence.

By remaining vigilant, supporting one another, and refusing to be defined by online anger or despair, we can ensure that isolated acts of violence do not shape our nation’s future. We have overcome greater challenges; this, too, we will meet with unity and strength.

Sticks and stones and bullets are not an appropriate response to words that someone does not like.