Recent shootings have raised concerns about growing political violence, but PNW professors
said the real problem is not violence, but the collapse of civil discourse.
Austin Hestdalen, professor of Communications, said violence takes place when people
feel words do not work – or communication ends. He said violence is another way to force
opponents to pay attention.
“When the general understanding of civic identity is thrown away, that’s when we open the doorway for violence to happen” he said.
When civility disappears, partisans tend to demonize their opponents, according to Jonathan Swarts, professor of Political Science and dean of the Honors College.
“Each side kind of portrays the other side as going to basically destroy the country,” he said. “It’s almost
as if the whole idea behind politics is to get on social media and make your opponents look
bad.”
That polarizes people and leads to misunderstandings about the people with whom you disagree.
“Part of what makes it easy to demonize others is a lack of understanding of who those ‘others’ really are,” said Yu Ouyang, professor of Political Science. “When you see someone as the enemy, it’s easier to do something to that enemy.”
A YouGov poll published in September reported that 87% of respondents say political violence
is a problem, with most (59% of U.S. adults) saying it is a very big problem and 28% calling it
somewhat of a problem.
In the past year, the incidence of political violence has increased. Conservative activist Charlie
Kirk was shot during a Utah college appearance in September. A Democratic Minnesota state
representative, Melissa Hortman, and her husband were assassinated in June. Democratic
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro was the target of a politically motivated murder attempt in
April. Two attempts were made on Donald Trump’s life as he ran for reelection in 2024.
Swarts acknowledged there are rare cases where citizens cannot achieve freedom or equality through democratic means.
“There can be instances where the majority wants to do things that are undemocratic,” he said. “If you’re living under a totalitarian state, there’s no way of expressing your views or achieving change.”
But violence comes with a cost, said Ouyang.
“Consequence wise, there’s the immediate and there’s the longer term,” he said. “If we get exactly what we demanded out of this action, will violence become an acceptable reaction? Because now, if I oppose you, there is a possibility my life is in danger.”
For Hestdalen, the rise of political violence suggests more problems lie ahead unless something is done to punish it.
“Violence has a long history in politics,” he said. “But if it is privileged over civil discourse as a means of achieving political ends, then we can’t really say we have politics at all.”
