‘Political violence is a sickness': Elected officials worry that attacks will escalate
Republican and Democratic politicians are warning about rising violence targeting elected officials in the aftermath of a series of attacks, including the killing of a state official in Minnesota on Saturday.
Within the last year, there have been multiple assassination attempts against President Donald Trump, an arson attack on Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro's residence, and the killing of two Israeli Embassy staffers in Washington — setting a new cycle of violence in the country.
That violence culminated this weekend after two Minnesota lawmakers and their spouses were shot in their own homes, leaving two dead and two others seriously wounded. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, formerly the Democratic nominee for vice president, went so far as to direct his public safety department to recommend citizens avoid political events out of fear for their safety.
Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon warned that the brutality his state witnessed on Saturday was not unique to Minnesota, but rather part of the broader trend of political animosity turning into acts of harm.
'Political violence is a sickness,' Simon, a Democrat, said. 'And unfortunately, it's on the rise. I want to be real clear here, we've had recent examples on both sides of the political spectrum. I am really very worried about where this is all headed.'
He added that 'to perpetrate it, to encourage it, to pretend to ignore it, all of those things will only further poison our democracy, and I — all of us — have to work hard now more than ever, to reinforce the idea that we have to settle our political differences lawfully, peacefully and ultimately at the ballot box.'
According to lawmakers from across the political spectrum, threats of violence and even murder that were once rare are now commonplace, as tensions amid heightened polarization spill over into charged confrontations.
'We're all getting death threats pretty regularly, and violent threats,' Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) said of his congressional colleagues. 'You go online and you just see all of the vile and hate and vitriol that is pulsing through mostly right wing politics and platforms, but there's some of it on the left too.'
And the threats don't just begin and end online.
'People have showed up outside my home,' Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat who is running for governor next year, said. 'We've had swatting attacks, we've had bomb threats. I've experienced all three of those things at my home. When things like this happen, it is a devastating reminder of the reality that we're living in in this moment.'
In 2020, several men were accused of plotting to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in order to start a civil war. Two suspects were later convicted on charges related to the incident. President Donald Trump recently floated pardoning the men convicted in the kidnapping plot.
Huffman said he and other members of Congress are 'taking all kinds of precautions' to boost their safety that they never before would have thought necessary in the U.S. Federal campaign finance officials signed off last year on allowing members of Congress and candidates to use campaign cash for a wide array of personal security measures due to the threats they now routinely face.
Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), who has young children, said he, too, had beefed up his security in the past year, because 'people have lost all sense of responsibleness and civility.'
Lawler said that the 'volatility' in political discourse has 'gotten so hot that people have lost perspective,' resulting in people 'making decisions that result in bodily harm of elected officials and the general public.'
'I think both parties have to recognize that some of the rhetoric really results in grave consequences,' the New York representative added, referencing the attempts on Trump's life in July and September. 'And how things are described, how people talk about actions being taken by the government, just all of it is destructive towards the public discourse, and frankly, put people's lives in jeopardy. And I hope people wake up to it, because it really is destructive.'
Members of Congress and Capitol police have been warning about an increase in threats to federal lawmakers for years. But the spike is particularly acute for state lawmakers, many of whom only work part time and do not have the resources that federal elected officials have.
'If Trump has literally the best security in the world, ostensibly, and can't stop it, how could they feel safe?' said Amanda Litman, the co-founder of the Democratic candidate recruitment group Run for Something. 'And I think the thing we came back to is — we want to be really honest with folks — there's nothing we can do to guarantee safety at all times. All we can do is control what we can control.'
But some political experts said that the rise in violence is further inflamed by the rhetoric and actions pushed by the Trump administration and other Republicans.
'I mean, it's not rocket science,' Harvard political scientist Steve Levitsky, who co-authored the book 'How Democracies Die' in 2018, said. 'You condone the January 6 insurrection. You pardon them all, or virtually all of them, including those who physically assaulted police officers, and you treat them as heroes. You send around unmarked cars with masked vigilante like agents, abducting people off the streets. You politicize the armed forces and send them in threatening violence upon peaceful protesters. And you condone the physical assault of a or arrest of a U.S. senator for peaceful expression of his views. … You've created an atmosphere that's not just permissive of political violence, it encourages political violence.'
Republican politicians are aware of the problem and say so privately, Levitsky said, but are 'worried' to speak up publicly.
Trump said of the shootings on Saturday that 'such horrific violence will not be tolerated in the United States of America.' The White House did not immediately respond to Levitsky's criticism.
The escalating violence comes amid heightened political tension, including millions of Americans pouring onto the streets to protest on Saturday as a counter to Trump's multi-million dollar military parade and the administration's recent immigration crackdowns.
Huffman noted the challenge for Democrats of threading the needle between resistance to the president, who Democrats have characterized as an authoritarian leader, and maintaining non-escalatory, peaceful protests.
'I don't want to pull punches, I don't want to stand down in any way, but I don't want to fan the flames that could lead to violence, and so I just try to strike that difficult balance,' Huffman said. 'We're also fighting for democracy and our rights against an authoritarian president who's trying to be a dictator, and you can't sugarcoat that, it's just reality.'
'So how do you confront that without contributing to this ladder of escalation that could lead to violence?' he asked. 'It's not simple.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
24 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
DOGE gets failing grade
1: The DOGE numbers don't add up. Calculating how much DOGE has saved is difficult, but it's not at all hard to see that it didn't deliver what was promised. After Musk revised down his own early projection of DOGE savings from $2 trillion to $1 trillion, the department's website now estimates it has found more than $170 billion in taxpayer savings — Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up But even that figure should be taken with a grain of salt, given that past examinations of DOGE's ' Advertisement DOGE moved to correct the error, as well as change the website to make such errors harder to find. But a Advertisement And though it may seem counterintuitive, cutting jobs doesn't actually translate to savings if it results in less productivity — if fewer IRS workers means less tax revenue is collected, for instance. An And even some Republican lawmakers have expressed unease with backing many DOGE-recommended cuts in a $9.4 billion legislative 'rescissions' package to claw back previously approved funding. House lawmakers 2: DOGE has roiled the job market. According to the latest jobs numbers, DOGE cuts contributed to a 50 percent spike in layoffs in May over the same period last year, Exacerbating the damage the firings alone have created is the chaotic way in which they were implemented. Federal agencies like the State Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Food and Drug Administration, National Weather Service, and the IRS are among those rushing to rehire terminated employees. That's because many of the estimated 135,000 DOGE-axed positions are for critical functions, like approving drugs and forecasting weather disasters. The layoffs' often-disorganized manner has confused dismissed workers and overtaxed remaining ones, many of whom have been asked to work overtime, volunteer to take on additional roles, or be pushed into new positions, Advertisement One former FDA worker That's not to mention the blow to communities in states where the largest percentages of federal workers are located, as well as government contractors that face secondhand profit and job losses due to the cuts. Outside of the greater Washington, D.C. region, which includes Virginia and Maryland, the hardest-hit states when it comes to canceled government contracts based on anti-DEI initiatives alone include Texas, California, North Carolina, Georgia, and Colorado — affecting politically red communities as well as blue. DOGE's harms know no partisanship. 3: The incalculable costs. On Monday a 'This was a breach of law and of trust,' wrote Judge Denise Cote in issuing the temporary injunction. 'Tens of millions of Americans depend on the Government to safeguard records that reveal their most private and sensitive affairs.' Whether some or all of DOGE's efforts to gain access to Americans' most sensitive information through agency databases will be declared unlawful is still uncertain. Challenges are still being litigated, and in a lawsuit involving DOGE access to Social Security data, the Advertisement According to Some DOGE staff have been granted temporary 'edit-access' to data, which means the information can be altered or deleted entirely within the federal system. That says nothing of the broader global impact, particularly through the dismantling of agencies like the United States Agency for International Development, which once provided critical life-saving humanitarian aid across the world. DOGE has The government claims that shuttering the agency saved Americans nearly $60 billion, or less than 1 percent of the federal budget. According to Advertisement Musk is already back to playing with his cars and rocket ships as the federal government picks up the pieces from his DOGE tantrum. But the global ripple effect is a reminder that some of the damage can't be undone. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Carney's first foreign policy test begins at G7 — amid Middle East crisis and Trump's trade war
Prime Minister Mark Carney will welcome leaders of the world's most powerful democratic countries Sunday for the start of a three-day meeting in the Rocky Mountains — a high-stakes summit that longtime G7 observers say could be one of the most consequential in years. Carney's priorities for this gathering in Kananaskis, Alta., reflect the challenges of our time: war and peace, energy security with a focus on critical minerals and artificial intelligence and "securing the partnerships of the future," according to the Prime Minister's Office. This will include talk about U.S. President Donald Trump's aggressive trade actions against Canada and other G7 countries. And as parts of Western Canada go up in flames, Carney has also put wildfires on the agenda. The leaders will discuss bolstering joint responses to climate disasters and some sort of "wildfire charter" is expected. Israel's strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities and military sites, which began Friday, could overshadow the discussions on the official agenda. The guest list for the summit, which includes India's Narendra Modi, has drawn some domestic criticism but Carney has argued that big global challenges should be addressed by the world's big players — even if there are some lingering tensions."It's a landmark summit because never before have these leaders had to confront so many strong, simultaneously interconnected crises," said John Kirton, director of the G7 Research Group at the University of Toronto. Kirton is pleased with the guest list Carney has assembled, saying there are more leaders of consequence coming to Kananaskis than perhaps any other such meeting in recent memory. In addition to the G7 members and India, Brazil, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, South Korea, Ukraine, Mexico and Australia — the secretaries general of the UN, NATO and EU along with the head of the World Bank will be there for at least part of the proceedings. When Trudeau hosted in 2018, Canada's guest list included leaders from "overwhelmingly little countries" with a focus on those facing endangered by rising shorelines like Jamaica, the Marshall Islands and the Seychelles, Kirton said. "Carney's list — it's a great one," Kirton told CBC News. "If you really want to lead the world, and not just the G7 part of the world, then you want the next tier of the biggest leaders there at the table." Leaders will begin to arrive Sunday and then be ferried by helicopter to the summit site. Monday's session will be broadly focused on the economy and "economic peace," and then security matters, government officials said in a background briefing. The second day will be when the non-G7 leaders will be brought in. It's also when Ukraine will be a major focus. Carney personally invited Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to discuss a path forward for that war-torn country. Trump has been hostile to Ukraine at times as he pushes for a swift resolution to the war Russia started — but he has largely maintained U.S. military support and anti-Russia sanctions despite some of his tough talk. On trade and Ukraine, the summit's success will depend on what Trump does or does not do, said Fen Hampson, a professor of international relations and the co-chair of the expert group on Canada-U.S. relations at Carleton University. "Even when it comes to his tech bro buddies, things can go sideways pretty quickly," Hampson said. "That's really the big risk here — does the president arrive in a good mood willing to do business, or is he in a bad mood?" While he's not expecting Trump to drop all of his tariffs after a few days in the mountains, Hampson said a U.S. "commitment to work together in a positive way" and revisit trade actions could be spun as a win by Carney. A commitment from Trump to stay the course in Ukraine would also be well-received by Carney and the Europeans in the room, Hampson said. To secure that sort of shift, Europe may commit to dropping policies that irritate Trump, including its digital services tax, while Canada could play up its newfound commitment to a stronger military and more defence spending, longtime U.S. demands, Hampson said. But depending on Trump to play nice is a risky proposition, he said. "Carney is more than just the head waiter at this meeting," Hampson said. "This is going to be a real test of his own negotiating skills." Increasing tensions in the Middle East after Israel launched airstrikes in Iran will further test Carney. Iran fired dozens of missiles toward Israel hours later. "With Israel's attack on Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Iran-Israel dynamics have to be at least informally on the agenda," University of Ottawa political science professor Thomas Juneau said. "It makes Prime Minister Carney's job way more complicated than it already was." No joint communique Unlike at past G7 summits, Canada is not planning to get all leaders to agree to a joint communique — a sometimes unwieldy list of priorities and accomplishments that all countries agree to sign. Instead, Canada has been working with the other countries ahead of time to secure leaders' approval on a series of short, joint statements focused on concrete actions and outcomes in key areas, a senior government official said ahead of the summit. This strategy could be interpreted as a way to avoid what befell the 2018 G7 meeting Canada hosted in Charlevoix, Que. Trump did not want to sign on to a series of climate change-focused measures — something former prime minister Justin Trudeau made a priority at those talks despite Trump's well-known hostility to environmentalism. The president ultimately agreed to the joint communique while withholding U.S. support for some green measures — but then torpedoed G7 unity entirely in a series of post-summit tweets, saying he was offended by what Trudeau said at a closing news conference. Rather than squabble over policy measures Trump will never support, Carney is focused on getting G7 leaders to coalesce around things that have a reasonable chance of garnering a consensus, a senior government official said. The government is framing this agenda as a more streamlined, focused document than the last one. Trudeau, by comparison, tried to get G7 support for 28 areas of agreement in Charlevoix. Trump may be the sticking point on trade and Ukraine, but Kirton said Carney's program suggests Canada is setting up this meeting to be a success on other issues. "If you're going to hit home runs, you really need the U.S. to go along with you. On many of Mark Carney's priorities, it's easy to see Donald Trump agreeing," he said, referring to defence spending, AI and a move to crack down on deadly drugs like fentanyl. "Carney has said he wants Canada to be a global leader. This is the way to make that happen — if he can pull it all together on the spot."
CNN
28 minutes ago
- CNN
Why McCain and Obama are causing marital tension
(LifeWire) -- Pamela Rainey Lawler and Denis Lawler of Philadelphia have handled the travails of being married 38 years without seeing eye to eye on a lot of things. The upcoming presidential election is no different. Pamela, a 58-year-old self-described "left-left" Democrat, will be voting for Barack Obama. Denis, a 60-year-old longtime Republican, plans to vote for John McCain. Although they joke about their situation, Pamela says it's hard to keep her sense of humor when the stakes are so high. Good thing they love each other. "It gets hard when things are getting down and dirty and there is a lot on the line," Pamela, the director of outreach and development at an educational company, says of her husband, a lawyer. But she adds, "The foundation of [our] relationship is so much bigger than politics, and tends to trump politics." Especially in an election season where emotions are running high, couples who don't agree on politics can keep the peace by being open and honest with one another. "Where couples get in trouble is not so much having a different opinion; it's how they communicate it," says Grecia Matthews, a couples therapist and social worker in New York City. Couples need to be honest about their arguing styles and tolerance for criticism, she adds. State your opinion Good communication skills are important, it's true, but as Lorraine Duval knows, it also helps to be married to a good-natured spouse. Duval, a 33-year-old music teacher and McCain disciple from Glens Falls, New York, admits that in the heat of the moment she has called her pro-Obama husband, Chris, by other, less loving names. "Sometimes you have to state your opinion," she says, though she emphasizes that Chris' easygoing nature diffuses the tension. She returns the favor at social gatherings where Republicans far outnumber Democrats. She'll "go off the deep end" in his defense if she feels McCain voters are ganging up on him, says Chris, a 34-year-old mortician. "We really didn't discuss our views until later on in the relationship," Lorraine explains. "It wouldn't have been an issue for me anyway." Besides, points out Andre Anthony Moore, the founder of Marriage and Couples Counseling in New York City, if spouses agreed on everything, "life would be dull." "But in the process of drinking in the other's opinion," he says, "you might get to be a bigger person." Embrace the difference Opinions always got a good airing in the Lawlers' home when she was growing up, says their daughter, Kristin, 37. "At our dinner table, if you couldn't be persuasive, you were toast," says Kristin, an assistant professor of sociology at the College of Mount St. Vincent in Riverdale, New York. But such debate wasn't divisive, it was healthy, she says. Even today, when the family gathers, they debate politics. "I do think that my parents would make a good model for others who vote differently and who are able to see their differences in a positive light," says Kristin. "Difference is a vital principle -- it keeps you on your toes. Having a good opponent makes you a better debater. And if you want your side to win, you have to know how to make a strong political argument." For the record, though, Pamela Lawler says the couple's three children tend to side with her. Agree to disagree "Elizabeth Leslie, 37, a Democrat from Sacramento, California, works hard to maintain the political peace with husband Troy Gassaway, 35, a Republican." "It's exceptionally challenging," she says. "We agree to disagree." Leslie confesses she can't help but try to sway her husband's allegiance -- as communications manager for the nonpartisan League of Women Voters of California, political persuasion is part of her job. Leslie, who was not speaking on behalf of the League, says she has persuaded her husband to vote her way on several proposals in the past two elections. She praised him for listening to her when he's on the fence about any legislation. But come November, he's sticking with McCain. "My advice is for couples to hear the other out," she says. "The passion that made up their mind -- at least consider it." And even if the debate gets ugly, consider the fringe benefits. All that emotion can stimulate friendlier activity, therapist Grecia Matthews points out: "There can be makeup sex." Keeping the peace Live in a house divided? Here are some tips for keeping the peace when you and your partner split the ticket: • If disagreements get too personal, consider keeping sensitive subjects like politics off-limits. • If you need to vent an unpopular opinion, talk with a friend who holds similar values. • Agree on a "safe word" signifying that a tense conversation needs to end, out of respect for one another. • After tensions peak, do an activity you both enjoy -- take a walk or go to the movies -- and remember why you love each other. • Establish firm guidelines on when and where it's OK to bring up the campaign -- if at all. E-mail to a friend LifeWire provides original and syndicated lifestyle content to Web publishers. Ron Dicker, a Brooklyn-based journalist, frequently writes about relationship topics. He previously covered sports for the New York Times. All About U.S. Politics • John McCain • Barack Obama
