"We should not allow violence to be our answer"
Summary: More in Common’s origins are deeply connected to a tragic moment of political violence, and much of our work aims to prevent the polarization that can otherwise generate violent outbreaks. In recent days we conducted research to understand Americans’ reactions to and concerns about future political violence following the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump. We found Americans are understandably concerned about future violence, yet fears may be based on skewed perceptions of their fellow Americans’ support for political violence.
For polarized societies, election seasons are times when, according to experts, the risk of civil violence is magnified. Even so, the image of a bloodied presidential candidate being pulled to the ground by their Secret Service detail is chilling. In the aftermath of the attempt on the life of former President Donald Trump, conspiracy theories flew, investigations launched, Americans expressed their concerns, and public officials pointed fingers at who to blame. Americans also began asking themselves whether this may be an indication of more violence to come, or a wake-up call to tone down the rancor.
In the days since, More in Common engaged with partners and everyday Americans to better understand how we grapple with the question of how to prevent political violence becoming normalized. Here are three takeaways from this work.
1. Support for political violence in the US is overestimated.
In the wake of the attempt on the Republican presidential nominee, we explored whether Republicans felt justified in using violence against Democrats—and what percentage of Republicans Democrats thought felt justified.1 We found that Democrats estimate almost four times as many Republicans are willing to condone violence as they really are. Democrats believe 47 percent of Republicans agree with the statement, "Violence against Democrats is now justified. (Independents believe it is 38 percent of Republicans.)2
However, in our representative national sample of Americans, only 13 percent of Republicans agreed, either strongly or somewhat. And the real number may be lower: accurately gauging people’s attitudes towards political violence is difficult for several reasons, and while it only takes one person to cause real harm, scholars have demonstrated numbers are often inflated. When we asked our online panel of Americans their reactions to the assassination attempt, many Republicans condemned political violence.
It is not justified for Democrats to be attacked now. We should turn the other cheek.
💬 Sheila, 24-year-old White woman, Republican, Moderate from Ocala, Florida3
Responding to this violent act with widespread violence is a stupid concept and one that has no place in this country.
💬 Jaria, 35-year-old Black man, Republican, Traditional Conservative from Sneads Ferry, North Carolina
2. After the assassination attempt, a majority (71%) of Americans expect more civil violence.
Americans have been feeling the impacts of political division for some time. Research (ours and others) consistently find a strong majority of Americans feel exhausted by political divisions. Past MIC studies show 65% of Americans are concerned about extremists in both parties; and 86% of Americans think the greatest threat to the US is coming from within. When we asked Americans about concerns for future violence shortly after the assassination attempt, 71% believe they will see more civil violence in the future.
I just think that this is going to be a start of a lot of big violent cases and I am very scared to be in this country. We already have a gun issue. We already have multiple mass shootings per day on average and now with this is going to make a lot of people upset.
💬 Lacy, 24-year-old White woman, Democrat, Traditional Liberal from Lancaster, New York
Civil war felt inevitable a couple years ago but cooled off. Recent events may have stoked that fire again.
💬 Peter, 45-year-old White man, Independent, Devoted Conservative from Saint Louis, Missouri
3. Democrats and Independents with larger perception gaps are more likely to be concerned about future violence.
We found that Democrats and Independents with more inaccurate perceptions of Republicans’ support for political violence are more likely to be concerned about civil violence in the next year.
Why this Matters
In deeply polarized societies, individual acts of violence become more dangerous because of their potential to cascade into something far worse. Rumors and disinformation can spread instantly through social media, and agitators can exploit these moments to create a sense of immediate threat, chaos and the need for retaliation. And as Barbara Walter sets out in her 2022 book How Civil Wars Start, many of the risk factors for outbreaks of civil violence in the US are now in place.
This is why it is important to prevent violence from becoming normalized, and to take action to reduce misperceptions (what we call perception gaps) between opposing political tribes. It matters when our divisions mean that groups start to believe the worst caricatures of each other. When one side thinks the other side is willing to engage in political violence it becomes more tolerant of violence. A recent study found, “attitudes of political violence are caused in part by judgments of how much others support and are willing to engage in political violence.” In other words, even when the overwhelming majority of Americans of both parties disagree with political violence, they overestimate their political foes’ willingness to commit violent acts.
There is no inevitability that violent political acts escalate into something worse. These are also moments when societies can pull back from the brink. In fact, in the days after the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, a lightning-fast study undertaken by researchers with The Polarization Research Lab found support for partisan violence (and murder) actually decreased — among both Democrats and Republicans. We found the same response in engaging with More in Common’s representative panel of Americans: many saw this event not as a moment for retaliation but an opportunity to unite with one voice against political violence.
I think what happened is very unfortunate but also hopefully serve as a good wake up call. I feel bad for the family that was impacted and as much as I am not a Trump supporter I do feel grateful that he was not seriously injured.
💬 Brie, 41-year-old White woman, Democrat, Traditional Liberal from Sterling, Virginia
We should not allow violence to be our answer and it is best not to make hasty decisions about conspiracy theories. We all need to be level headed.
💬 Chloe, 67-year-old Asian American woman, Republican, Traditional Conservative from Watsonville, California
It is very sad and horrific that an innocent rally goer lost his life and others were injured! Unfortunately, these attacks on political leaders have been a part of our history and need to be condemned by all of us! I sincerely hope we don't see any major civil violence in the next year!
💬 Mac, 70-year-old White man, Democrat, Traditional Liberal from Omaha, Nebraska
Ultimately, to reduce the risk of political violence we must strengthen our common values, reinvigorate connections across the lines of division and reinforce norms around democracy and civil discourse. That way, fewer people will buy into ‘us-vs-them' stories that create misleading beliefs, an increased sense of threat and feelings that conflict has become inevitable.
But in the meantime, we should take to heart the reality that overwhelming majorities of Americans reject political violence, even after a violent political attack. Voices that elevate ‘us-versus-them' stories that deepen misperceptions need to be challenged more vigorously on their own side, exposing that it is neither true that many people on ‘my’ side want to fight or that many on the other side are itching for violence. Closing those perception gaps can meaningfully strengthen the prospects of us peacefully navigating our way through these difficult and divided times.
Support our work by making a donation.
📩 Know someone who may enjoy our newsletter? Have them sign up here.
📝 If you want to read our past newsletters, go to our homepage.
Given the assassination attempt was on the Republican presidential nominee, we did not explore in this survey if Democrats felt justified to use violence against Republicans – and relatedly what Republicans’ estimation was of Democrats’ support for violence.
This is called a “perception gap” - the gap between what we imagine an opposing group believes and what that group actually believes. Read more: https://www.historyperceptiongap.us and https://perceptiongap.us.
In addition to demographic information, we include the corresponding “Hidden Tribe” (Progressive Activist, Traditional Liberal, Passive Liberal, Politically Disengaged, Moderate, Traditional Conservative, and Devoted Conservative) for our qualitative research participants. Check out Hidden Tribes to learn more about our segmentation.
Methodology:
July 2024 Omnibus Survey
More in Common partnered with international polling company YouGov to conduct online survey interviews with N = 2,000 US adults from July 19-23, 2023. The respondents were matched to a sampling frame on gender, age, race, and education. The margin of error (adjusted for weighting) is +/- 2.37 for the US average and higher for subgroups.
Qualitative Research Methods: Americans in Conversation
Americans in Conversation is a cutting-edge, mixed media, mixed methods research platform run by More in Common that enables testing of a wide range of content. At its core, it is a tool that helps us understand the views of everyday Americans. It consists of a politically and demographically diverse and representative online community of about 200 Americans with whom we can engage continuously. We make the platform available to partners to provide rapid response insights at key moments as well as for planned longer-term purposes. We draw insights from the platform through analysis of participants’ video journaling, surveys, discussion groups and in-depth interviews. We have found that qualitative data is a powerful and underused way to both understand and present the views of Americans. The rich quotes and long-form thoughts of Americans on various issues is vital for gaining a deeper understanding of people’s underlying beliefs.
From July 16-20, 2024, our participants completed a task about their views on the attempted Assassination of President Donald Trump. Participants responded to a series of open-ended questions probing their views on the motivations for the shooting, political violence, and additional comments about the attempted assassination. A total of 201 US participants completed the activity. Quotations from those activities with participants are included in this report. Where provided, names have been changed to protect their privacy. Grammar and punctuation may have been lightly edited for clarity.