Below is my column in USA Today on the rising support for political violence, particularly among young voters. Citizens are being desensitized to violence, even murder, when committed for a good cause.
Here is the column:
Across the country, a chilling shift is occurring. Political violence has become a twisted form of virtue signaling. Mahatma Gandhi is out and Luigi Mangione is in. For an increasing number of young people, nothing signals your values like a willingness to kill others for them.
For decades, being nonviolent has been the touchstone for many on the left. Something is changing. On my campus and others around the country, students are rationalizing violence and even idolizing assassins.
A recent Emerson College poll shows that 4 out of 10 voters between the ages of 18-29 (39%) view Mangione’s role in the fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson as “acceptable” or “somewhat acceptable.” Other polls show a troubling number of liberal voters consider political violence justified, including polls showing 40% of young people embracing political violence in some circumstances.
For college students, the rationalization of the killing of a Charlie Kirk or a Brian Thompson is now a litmus test of your movement bona fides. I have heard exchanges where students identify with accused assassin Tyler Robinson, who wrote, “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I took it.”
This week, UC Irvine instructor Matt Goldman came under fire for a posting showing the picture of conservative Nick Shirley with the menacing observation “Someone can do the funniest thing just before the Kirkiversary.” There was a time when political assassination was viewed as anathema, particularly among academics.
To put it simply, violence is in vogue.
Hollywood isn’t helping our political violence problem
Hollywood is commoditizing political violence. Many conservatives were critical of the movie “One Battle After Another,” with Leonardo DiCaprio, as glorifying domestic terrorism and fueling liberal paranoia.
Other actors seem eager to make their films part of a political rage fest. “Spider-Man” actor Andrew Garfield actually said that he hoped that his new movie, “The Uprising,” would make billionaires scared, declaring that “I hope that if any billionaires watch it, they’re scared s—less.”
Garfield wanted to take this film as his own bona fides with the mob, demonizing the rich. He apparently forgot Spider-Man’s motto, “With great power comes great responsibility.”
Others are more direct. Lexi Alexander, director of the 2008 Marvel film “Punisher: War Zone,” triggered a firestorm Sept. 1 with an X post featuring Mangione’s face superimposed on Batman’s bat signal. The posting featured a new article’s headline: “Bank of America vice president killed in Times Square stabbing.” The vice president, Erin Piacenti, 32, left a 5-month-old daughter who will now grow up without a mother.
When people noted the obvious that Alexander, who bills herself as a “Palestinian filmmaker,” was seemingly celebrating the death of bank officer Piacenti, who was just back from maternity leave, Alexander accused them of being Israeli propagandists, or “Hasbara bots.”
In a now-deleted post, Alexander dismissed criticism that she knew about the executive being a new mother and said it was enough at the time that she was an executive because “it sounded like another Luigi situation.”
For years, politicians, pundits and professors have fueled political rage by claiming that those with opposing views are seeking to end democracy, bring back the Confederacy or turn citizens into slaves of the oligarchs. Such apocalyptic claims give a sense of license to people to free themselves from all social and moral constraints, allowing them to hate completely and unreservedly.
The saddest aspect of this trend is what it says about our hold on not just our civility but our humanity. The irony is that the arc of the moral universe, famously described by Martin Luther King Jr., is being bent back in the name of perverted notions of equity and justice. By demonizing others like corporate executives, many on the left are now free to enjoy gratuitous violence, even the killing of a new mother in Times Square.
In “Rage and the Republic,” I write about the fear of the founders that democracies historically devolved into what Benjamin Rush called “mobocracies.” John Adams put that history in its starkest terms: “there never was a democracy yet, that did not commit suicide.”
The founders watched as the French Revolution, occurring shortly after our own, unleashed a blood-soaked “Terror” as a population engaged in a spasm of violence against aristocrats, clergy and then themselves.
Maximilien Robespierre would legitimize the slaughter by telling citizens that violence was noble and mercy was weakness. He explained that “Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue.”
Past movements from the French Revolution to the Cultural Revolution to recent genocidal campaigns in Europe and Africa show that a dark element rests deep within us that can be released when we are sufficiently angry or afraid.
In my book, I call it the “Saturn Gene.” During the French Revolution, journalist Jacques Mallet du Pan observed that “like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children.” It is an inexorable pattern where movements release long-suppressed rage only to destroy those who led the mob to collective acts of murder and mayhem.
With influential figures and even political leaders fueling the rage, we can no longer ignore the growing appeal and acceptance of political violence. This country has never allowed the Saturn gene to become dominant in our body politic. However, as the citizens are increasingly conditioned to accept political violence, we are dangerously resembling not our Revolution 250 years ago, but that of France.
If we are to proceed down that road, citizens would be wise to consider the words of Abbé Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès, one of the most important voices of the French Revolution. When he was asked what he had done during the Revolution, the old abbot pondered the question and answered: “J’ai vécu” (“I survived”).
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
When will PQTUS tell the muslHAMs to go home?
‘‘Why’’ the increase rise in political and social violence in the United States ? Reported Communist Goal #42 provides another plausible explanation:
1- Reported Communist Goals designed to undermine and overthrow the U.S. were listed in the January 10, 1963 Congressional Record. Manifestations of these destructive goals have appeared over multiple decades and remain active and influential during 2025.
2. These 45 Goals may serve as an organizational framework, template, or plan by Totalitarian Ideologists seeking to influence, create turmoil and chaos, disrupt daily U.S. citizens’ lives, and destroy core U.S. Institutions.
3. Totalitarian Ideologists are found among individuals who support various political beliefs such as: Communism; Socialism; Marxism; Wokeism; Progressivism; Liberalism; Leftism; Jihadism; Antifa; or similar ideologies.
4. The ultimate objectives of these specific Totalitarian Ideologies involve weakening and dismantling the foundational Institutional structures that have historically underpinned American Society’s structure, ideals, and beliefs.
5. Numerous political analysts and government representatives appear to lack awareness or understanding of the 45 disruptive goals documented in the 1963 Congressional Record, as well as their relevance to recent social, political, educational, economic, sports; and religious developments in the United States.
6. Furthermore, these same individuals seem unaware of Goal # 42’s existence when they ask:
‘’Why’’ is political and social violence increasing in the USA?
This lack of awareness regarding Goal #42 along with the specific details and implications of ALL 45 goals may contribute to the persistent confusion of many individuals over basic causes of unrest and instability in the country.
As a result, the connection between ideological strategies and rising tensions often goes unrecognized, leaving gaps in understanding and response among policymakers, other government representatives, and the public.
7. Therefore, it is both reasonable and prudent for all United States citizens to become familiar with these 45 detrimental goals listed in the 1963 Congressional Record.
8. Finally, a credible explanation for the increase in political and social violence in the United States can be identified within the specific content of Communist Goal #42, which states:
Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use “united force” to solve economic, political or social problems.”
===================================================================
PS – The following titles and links to other Substack articles of mine provide more details about all 45 Goals and related social and political unrest.
1. The Enemy Within: 45 Communist Party Trojan Elephants are being ignored in the adjoining room — the Parlor
https://donbradyphdpsydncsp.substack.com/p/45-communist-china-party-trojan-elephants/comments
2. “Social Justice Wokeism” reawakens, repackages, & reactivates 45 Communist Goals published in the January 1963 Congressional Record. These goals are designed to erode and topple core U.S. Institutions
3. The Winds of War Continue at Hurricane Force – Seems an Undeclared and Unrecognized WW III is Occurring, but Under an Atypical Scenario?
Don’s looking to advertise his crazy skills here.
That is a remarkable amount of hyperbole, even for Turley.He writes, “For decades, being nonviolent has been the touchstone for many on the left.” As opposed to those on the right? January 6th was a massive demonstration of right-wing political violence. Just yesterday, Nancy Mace called for a public execution. We even have regulars in this forum who openly call for civil war the moment they feel their “values” are threatened.
Mangione is a unique case because the American healthcare system is universally loathed. A widespread lack of sympathy for a health insurance CEO is not an endorsement of violence—a crucial distinction Professor Turley conveniently fails to make. As usual, his analysis is defined by what he leaves out. The killings of both Brian Thompson and Charlie Kirk were widely condemned by the left. Were they justified? No. Did they merit public sympathy for the victims? To many, also no. Again, refusing to mourn is not the same as endorsing violence.
The right was so outraged by this lack of public grief that they demanded people be fired or arrested for failing to show sufficient sympathy. That is an astonishing level of authoritarian rage—rage that Turley predictably ignores.Here is the reality that Turley refuses to face: when Donald Trump dies, a massive portion of the country will be glad, and they will refuse to perform the corporate mourning the right demands. Trump will receive the exact same sentiment most dictators get when they…expire.
Oh Oh George is back! Raring to go, but not on all cylinders.
His blog, he can write what he wants, doesn’t need your approval, nor has he sought anyone’s approval of what to write or not.. And considering you’re a wack-job trying hard to sound smart and controversial – you always fail. You’re a whiner. Folks might read the first line and know its you whining again about Turley premier status, something you can never attain. You’re not a lawyer or an academic and that eats you up to the point you loose it everytime. You’re just an stupid old fart with too much time. Your welcome.
Whew! Read just a couple lines and … just crazy shite.
I don’t find this poll to be convincing evidence.
“It was a day of love.”