Violence is toxic to democracy

How autocrats use episodes of violence to justify crackdowns

A note is left behind outside campus a day after the shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University. (AP Photo/Lindsey Wasson)

The assassination of Charlie Kirk has disturbed me pretty deeply. Like many Americans, I have thought about little else for the past week. The terror of the event. The suffering of his family in the aftermath. The dangerous unknown of what could happen next. The dark reality of living in a country where this kind of thing happens, where political violence is becoming a part of who we are.

Instead of rushing to write about what this murder might mean and what to do in response, we chose to wait. We wanted to take a slower, more deliberative approach.

In that reflection, I kept coming back to one particularly heavy truth: Violence almost always benefits authoritarianism.

As Jennifer Dresden, Aaron Baird, and I wrote in The Authoritarian Playbook back in 2022:

[Outbreaks of violence] can offer political cover for restrictions on civil liberties or the expansion of coercive security measures. They can also suppress voter turnout among opposition and inspire supporters to turn out in competitive areas.

Stoking violence advances authoritarian efforts in other areas of the playbook such as quashing dissent, but it also undermines the norms and trust among political elites, as well as the broader population, that underpin democratic stability. As feelings of insecurity rise, social divisions become more salient and politicized, and political leaders’ incentives shift further toward hardball politics over negotiation and compromise.

There are two different vectors here. Both of them we’re seeing play out in real time.

First, the threat of violence in itself chills dissent and stifles public participation. Kirk’s killing, singular and horrific as it was, was not an isolated incident. A growing trend of political violence — including the shootings of two Democratic state legislators and their spouses in Minnesota, the attack on the CDC, the firebombing of the governor’s residence in Pennsylvania, the multiple instances of drivers attacking “No Kings” protests with vehicles, and two assassination attempts on Donald Trump last year — threatens to cast a suffocating pall over American democracy.

Second, specific episodes of violence — or even just the threat of violence — can be easily harnessed as a pretext for repression. At present, there is no public evidence that any organization was connected directly or indirectly to this assassination, nor are there tangible allegations of any leaders on the left fomenting violence. And yet the White House is openly planning to use the killing as an excuse to go after opposition groups, organizations, funders, and other ideological or political adversaries.

Senior White House official Stephen Miller threatened these unnamed groups with unsubstantiated allegations:

We have to dismantle and take on the radical left organizations in this country that are fomenting violence. And we are going to do that, under President Trump’s leadership. I don’t care how. It could be a RICO charge, a conspiracy charge, conspiracy against the United States, insurrection. But we are going to do what it takes to dismantle the[se] organizations and the[se] entities.

Ominous times.

How violence chills speech and dissent

Politics is a vulnerable exercise. Healthy discourse requires courage, for all of us to be willing to literally and metaphorically enter the public square.

When political violence strikes — particularly when fellow citizens are injured or killed while engaging in political speech — it hits on an intense, negative, and personal level. We can’t help but feel fear for our safety and for our loved ones.

The logical reaction to this fear is to retreat from public life. Many simply stay home and disengage from political questions. Fewer people are willing to run for office or get engaged in politics. Canvassing, registering voters, and even just voting all feel riskier. Women, people of color, parents of young children, and other vulnerable communities are disproportionately impacted. Families and senior citizens stop going to protests or public events, leaving only the angrier or more militant. Many change their social media accounts to private or just stop participating at all.

It’s almost a biological response — fight or flight.

This chilling effect is real, it’s rational, and it’s happening in America today. Here are some quotes from everyday Americans on Sarah Longwell’s The Focus Group podcast:

Well, this was the first protest that I had gone to … I was a little nervous because there’s a lot of crazies out there, and it wouldn’t take much for someone with a gun or a car just to drive through. You know, you just don’t know.

My concern would be that a nutjob like the guy in Minneapolis or a Proud Boy would think nothing better than to go to a big city with 25,000 people and, you know, drive a car through or take an incendiary device to be a minuteman to quell our dissatisfaction.

Like she said, they might have a gun. You say the least little thing, and people will just — it’s like it’s a fuse — snap for the least little thing. So you just don’t know. You have to protect yourself too.

I didn’t really talk that much before, but, I mean, I keep so to myself right now that it’s mind-boggling — that, like, I don’t want to even assert any kind of random statement that might cause someone to go ballistic.

Violence also doesn’t just impact everyday citizens. Listen to what high-ranking elected officials are saying about the impact of violence on themselves or their colleagues:

We are all afraid. - Sen. Lisa Murkowski

The emotional challenge for me that’s been the hardest to work through is that, as a father, the career I chose, that I find great purpose and meaning in, ended up putting my children’s lives at risk. - Gov. Josh Shapiro

I have colleagues who feared for their safety or their family's safety and that helped sway how their vote ultimately went. - Former Rep. Peter Meijer

People are scared to death in this building. Not many of them will say it publicly, but they're running to the Speaker talking about security. - Rep. Jared Moskowitz

(According to a Brennan Center survey, a majority of state legislators believe that abuse and intimidation has deterred their colleagues from taking on controversial topics.)

This would all be disturbing enough if our government was attempting to heal the division, to disarm the hate, and to reassure Americans that politics is still safe for them, regardless of their views.¹

Instead, the president and many of his allies are seeking to weaponize the moment.

Unfortunately, this has been President Trump’s pattern since arriving on the political scene nearly a decade ago, during which time he has invoked violent rhetoric and posted violent memes in a manner unlike any other national leader from either political party.

How autocrats use episodes of violence to justify crackdowns

The script is as old as autocracy. The assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 B.C. was the central pretext for finally extinguishing the last vestiges of the Roman Republic.

Modern authoritarians, though, have perfected the tactic.

In Turkey, a violent coup attempt against Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in 2016 was used as a flashpoint to justify widespread repression of dissent. The increasingly authoritarian regime has purged tens of thousands of civil servants and academics, targeted hundreds of journalists, and criminalized a wide swath of opposition leaders.

In Russia, a series of apartment bombings in Moscow in 1999 spread fear across the country and formed the pretext for then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s massive consolidation of power. (There’s still debate over whether the bombings were a false flag by the intelligence services.)

In China, the government today uses the pretext of “terror” to justify systematic and widespread repression of the Uyghurs and Tibetans.

This dynamic has already played out in the United States. Campus protests last year over the war in Gaza² have been used by the administration to justify a retaliatory campaign against universities. Images of burning Waymos in Los Angeles provided the pretext for the administration to deploy soldiers on the streets.

But over the last week, we’ve clearly entered new territory. President Trump (and his allies) are openly planning a crackdown on a new, unprecedented scale.

Said the president:

For years those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals.

This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now. My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials and everyone else who brings order to our country.

I expect forthcoming repression to focus not just on the president’s political adversaries but also on vulnerable groups, transgender Americans in particular. (Authoritarians always tend to look for scapegoats first — scapegoating is a central part of the playbook — and this time trans Americans are clearly being targeted.)

How to overcome the ratchet of violence and repression

So what can we all do to prepare?

One, brace for a continued closing of civic space. The next waves of repression are likely to focus on left-leaning civil society, nonprofits, philanthropists, and organizers, including but not limited to those advocating for the rights of transgender people. And, if statements from Trump allies are any indication, attempts at retaliation could also extend to journalists and universities and others.

All of these groups and actors need to be prepared to possibly be targeted.

It doesn’t matter that almost certainly none of them have anything to do with violence of any kind. The argument will be that any group who criticizes the government, its leaders, or their agenda is potentially responsible for “fomenting” violence.³ That means that anyone not fundamentally aligned with the White House could eventually face attempted censorship or weaponization of government.

Looking ahead to this threat, our top three recommendations for organizations:

1. Understand the dangers of anticipatory obedience.

2. Even if you’ve scrupulously followed the rules, identify your organization’s greatest potential vulnerabilities — political, legal, security — and remedy them as quickly as possible.

3. Start preparing response plans now for a politicized investigation or enforcement action.

And everyone else needs to be prepared to come together to defend whoever is eventually targeted.

Read more about how nonprofits can be prepared.

Read more about how to engage in our democracy even in the face of a closing civic space.

Preparing civil society for possible repression is not a retreat. Rather, building these defenses can make civic space stronger, more resilient, and more able to weather possible incursions from the government.

Two, try to think slower, react less, and extend grace. There’s probably little our community — the people reading this briefing — could have done to influence people like the suspect in the Kirk murder or the man who murdered Melissa Hortman and dissuade them from violence. People like that seem to be radicalized in dark corners of the internet few of us will ever visit.

But we can still do our part to model healthier, pro-democracy discourse.

Reflect before reacting. Wait to weigh in. Extend more grace — even to those who would not extend it to you. Insist on (and model) nonviolence, even as you express deeply held views, fundamental disagreements, and pointed criticisms. Try to find humanity in people you disagree with, maybe even in those who have caused deep harm.

Three, keep speaking. Yes, free expression in the United States is under grave threat. But the right to speak remains a cornerstone of the American democratic experiment.

By far the most important thing you can do to help overcome attempts at censorship is to continue to use your free speech rights calmly and peacefully to advocate against violence, against repression, and for civic space.

It’s true there are growing personal risks to speaking, protesting, and participating in politics, and they’re not the same for everyone. (We’re in the middle of a wave of professional retaliation against both public and non-public individuals for their speech about last week’s assassination.⁴)

So be careful, and be safe. But our democracy depends on all of us continuing to speak.

And to be clear, that includes pointed criticism of the president and his allies — especially when they engage in acts of authoritarianism that undermine the very foundations of our constitutional system of government.

As Nick Catoggio wrote last week:

An inflammatory truth is still the truth, and no one should feel obliged to pretend otherwise following Kirkʼs atrocious murder just because one side would rather not hear it. (You would think a faction that valorizes political incorrectness might appreciate that.) Itʼs not irresponsible to shout “fire” in a crowded theater when there is a fire. Itʼs irresponsible not to.

In the coming days and weeks, we'll continue reckoning with the escalation of political violence and repression and what it means for our democracy. In the meantime:

Keep speaking.

---

Helpful reading on political violence and free expression:

• “How to prevent political violence” by Rachel Kleinfeld and Nicole Bibbins Sedaca.

• “Light over darkness — choosing civility in a time of contempt” by Sen. John Curtis.

• “Now is not the moment to fall silent” by Charlie Sykes.

• “Turn toward each other: A Utah response to tragedy” by Emma Addams, Paul Edwards, Maury Giles, Becca Kearl, Patrick Mason, Tami Pyfer, and Marianne Viray.

• “10 ways to take down the political temperature” by Stephen Richer.

• “Protecting civic space: a primer” by Protect Democracy.

• “Free speech was meant for the speech we hate — not the words we all agree on” by Adam Kinzinger.

• “The attorney general’s attack on free speech” by Conor Friedersdorf.

• “The Kirk crackdown is underway” by Thomas Edsall.

• “Attitudes towards political violence in the United States” by More in Common.

1. To his credit, this is pretty much exactly what Utah Governor Spencer Cox seems to be trying to do.

2. Worth noting that the vast majority of these were peaceful, but as in other cases around the world, authoritarians seize on isolated incidents to justify broad and sweeping reactions.

3. Specifically, this is why we have things like “incitement” standards, which draw lines between people who caused violent actions to occur and those who just happened to be peacefully making a similar argument to the views of the violent actors.

4. Ironically, much of this is coming from actors who previously decried so-called “cancel culture” — but that hypocrisy doesn’t make the risks any less significant.