Global leaders under fire
The image of a bloodied Donald Trump, defiantly raising his fist against a backdrop of the American flag, will be indelibly etched in the memories of his supporters and millions around the world. The Republican presidential candidate narrowly escaped an attack that could have profoundly altered the nation's trajectory and deepened its political divides.
While political violence remains unpredictable, experts argue that it has become increasingly pervasive over the past decades, extending well beyond the United States. Just two months ago, world leaders condemned an attack on Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico, who was left in a ‘life-threatening condition’ after being shot multiple times in the town of Handlova. A month after that, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen was attacked in a Copenhagen square. Though Frederiksen suffered minor whiplash, she was otherwise unharmed.
This surge in political violence is not confined to Europe or any particular region. About two years ago, former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was gunned down while addressing a political event outside Yamato-Saidaiji Station in Nara City. Shortly thereafter, former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan was shot when his convoy came under fire during a rally. The 70-year-old cricketer-turned-politician was wounded in his lower leg but survived.
In the US, the attack on Trump is seen as one of the most serious assassination attempts against a president or presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan was shot in 1981. American politics is no stranger to such incidents and has a history of such violence. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas in 1963, and his brother, Robert F. Kennedy was killed at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles in 1968. Recent years have seen the US shaken by attacks on public figures, including the shootings of Representatives Gabby Giffords and Steve Scalise. In 2018, mail bombs were sent to media outlets and prominent Democrats. A plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who is on the list of candidates who might replace Biden, was thwarted in 2020, and in 2022, a gunman was arrested outside Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home. That same year, a hammer attack targeted the husband of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
According to criminologists at the University of Maryland, who have tracked political violence from 1970 to 2020, incidents in the US began to rise significantly in 2016, coinciding with Donald Trump’s first presidential campaign. Much of this increase is attributed to the divisive rhetoric employed by Trump himself.
According to experts, political discourse has been marred by martial analogies for many years. But Trump, in particular, has been a prominent figure in this trend. Recently, the former president warned of a ‘blood bath’ if he lost and suggested that retired General Mark Milley deserved execution. The firebrand leader has also accused Republican critic Liz Cheney of ‘treason,’ calling for her to face a military trial, and has referred to his enemies as ‘vermin,’ claiming that immigrants are ‘poisoning the blood of our country.’ Experts believe that, to a troubling extent, Donald Trump, now the leading Republican candidate, has used social media to amplify his disdain for opponents.
“In terms of civil discourse, threats of violence will stifle it, leaving only the very loud minority being heard, which grants that minority disproportionate power,” said Dr Melissa Beattie, who is affiliated with Southern New Hampshire University. Her research, focusing on national identity and audience studies, observes that divisive rhetoric has become increasingly normalized in mainstream politics, particularly among right-wing figures like Trump. In contrast, Democratic leaders often strive to build consensus and avoid populist rhetoric.
Beattie believes that social media platforms play a pivotal role in amplifying these divisions. Commenting on the Republican Party's strategy, she said: "The GOP has mastered the art of spreading misinformation and leveraging elite funding to saturate the media and shape news discourse rapidly, making real-time fact-checking increasingly difficult."
“They exploit emotions, particularly fear and anger, directing them at minorities whom the GOP blames for societal issues, and offering simplistic solutions to complex, systemic problems,” she added.
According to Beattie, the Republicans find support for their rhetoric in areas with underfunded education systems, where residents lack critical thinking and media literacy skills. “To be clear, these individuals are not lacking in intelligence; rather, they have been deprived of the education they need and deserve, a situation perpetuated in many states,” Beattie explained.
Many GOP supporters, Beattie said, have been mistreated by elites and understandably harbor significant anger. “The broader normalization of violence, driven by racist, misogynistic, or other extremist agendas, reflects a troubling trend in both political and societal contexts,” she added.
In a recent survey, Robert Pape, a University of Chicago professor who has extensively studied political violence, including the January 6 Capitol insurrection, reported significant mainstream support for political violence. "We found that nearly 5 to 10 percent of American adults supported political violence to restore Donald Trump to the presidency," Pape told CBS News. "Currently, 10 percent of American adults support the use of force to prevent Trump from becoming president," he added.
According to Beattie, social media platforms reflect and magnify existing cultural and subcultural dynamics. “In the GOP’s case, they have used social media to spread misinformation, backed by extensive advertising campaigns that often deploy violent rhetoric,” she added. “This includes symbolic violence, such as dehumanizing individuals who are non-white, non-heterosexual, or non-cisgender.”
Social media monetization strategies, Beattie noted, exacerbate the issue. “Platforms profit from user engagement, with content that incites anger or fear drawing more attention,” she added.
“This model, akin to clickbait, aims to provoke strong emotional reactions to boost financial gain. Such content can manipulate public perception, casting certain groups as threats. When this narrative is reinforced by sociocultural contexts that normalize or promote violence—such as framing political disputes as a ‘war’ necessitating self-defense—and coupled with inadequate education and media literacy, it can lead to increased politically or ideologically motivated violence,” Beattie explained.
The academic emphasized that the issue of political violence is not merely psychological but a systemic, sociocultural problem affecting societies worldwide.