Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Katie Pruszynski, PhD Candidate, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Sheffield

Charlie Kirk, figurehead of the American far right, took a question at a 2023 event in Salt Lake City about the second amendment to the US constitution and gun-related deaths. He answered: “I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights.”

Two years later, once again in Utah, Kirk was killed with a gun. His death comes against a backdrop of increased political violence in the US, driven by a new set of political, societal and technological factors, and its future trajectory will determine the health of American democracy.

Political violence is differentiated from other crimes and it is helpful to have clarity about its particular meaning. It is defined specifically as acts intended to achieve political goals or intimidate opponents through the use of physical force or threats to influence a political outcome or silence dissent. While most of these incidents come from the far right, violence is used by extremists on both sides.

Over the past decade there has been a dangerous escalation in political violence driven by rage and resentment without clearly defined goals by self-radicalised individuals rather than organised extremist groups. High profile incidents have dominated headlines. These include the insurrection of January 6 2021, the shooting at a baseball practice session of Republican members of Congress in 2018, the plot to kidnap Michigan governor, Gretchen Whitmer in 2020, the vicious attack on Paul Pelosi – the husband of the speaker of the House of Representatives – in 2022, the torching of Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro’s family home in April this year. And, of course, the assassination attempts on Donald Trump on the campaign trail in 2024.

But the threat has spread beyond the very visible faces of US democracy to targets such as judges, election officials, journalists and even private citizens based upon their perceived political affiliation.

It is shocking yet unsurprising, given the new factors fuelling rage in an already deeply divided society. These can be broadly summarised by three characteristics.

Hyper-partisanship at boiling point

The way politics is discussed today shows that division can’t be seen in merely partisan terms. Opponents have become enemies and those with different worldviews have become traitors. In many examples, pundits, politicians and their mouthpieces indulge in dehumanising rhetoric. Research has consistently found that dehumanisation contributes to a more ready justification of violence.

Indeed, Trump and other high-profile figures have incited violence, even when not actually issuing direct calls to action. This was most notably evident on January 6 2021, when Trump goaded supporters in Washington to march on the Capitol, telling them: “And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

Digital echo chambers

These pressure cooker arguments play out on social media and online forums that help spread conspiracy theories, disinformation and violent content. Highly influential creators are able to conjure up “bespoke realities” for their followers, generating huge personal wealth from the fomenting of rage and hate. Citizens are consuming deeply flawed, incendiary political content in isolation. This fuels self-radicalisation when people become detached from reality of the world outside their bubble.

Indeed, immediately following the Kirk shooting, social media was already awash with disinformation about liberals celebrating his death and the motivations of the killer before the shooter had been found.

Erosion of trust in democracy

When faith in government, the justice system, and the electoral process erodes, citizens may come to believe that the established systems are rigged, unresponsive, or illegitimate. This makes traditional avenues for change seem futile. In this environment, violence can be rationalised as the only effective means to “correct” the broken system. The American right has long railed against a corrupt and malevolent “deep state” convincing some citizens that democratic norms no longer apply.

What next? There are three possible scenarios. The worst case is an escalation of violence in both its frequency and its organisation.

The far right has been pushing for strict limits on civil liberties, and the most extreme members may use Kirk’s assassination as an excuse for violent retaliation. Widespread civil unrest is a persistent threat, particularly approaching the 2026 midterm elections. Many fear that if Trump’s allies sense they can use escalating disorder to declare an emergency suspension of democratic processes, they will push him to do so.

More likely, but no less unsettling, is a stagnation in which political violence becomes a normalised feature of American political life without escalating to an existential crisis. This has potentially far-reaching consequences as more moderate politicians on both sides perceive the risks of being in public life to be too high and vacate their offices. This paves the way for more extreme candidates to fill the gaps. With the more moderate voices gone, it’s less likely the conversation will cool down.

But things could improve. It will require bipartisan condemnation of political violence and a reconnecting of politicians to their constituents. Both sides need to work together to drag a bigger portion of the political debate back into the real world. Meanwhile social media platforms and the legacy media alike must be held accountable for the tenor and veracity of the content they feed to the public.

And efforts must be made by political elites, the media and the public to rebuild civic trust. As the foundation stone of a healthy democracy, citizens’ trust in their government and in each other must be carefully pieced back together.

America does not need to accept violence as the norm, in fact, it must collectively and consistently reject it. The future of its democracy may depend on it.

Katie Pruszynski does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Charlie Kirk shooting: another grim milestone in America’s long and increasingly dangerous story of political violence – https://theconversation.com/charlie-kirk-shooting-another-grim-milestone-in-americas-long-and-increasingly-dangerous-story-of-political-violence-265115

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gordon Lynch, Professor of Religion, Society and Ethics, University of Edinburgh

Wherever you stand on his political views, Charlie Kirk’s murder is a tragedy on a personal level. He was just 31 and a husband and father of young children. But as a public figure his death represents a dangerous moment, as it threatens to deepen divides between conservatives and liberals in America and beyond.

Many commentaries on Kirk’s life will focus on his significance as a political activist and the important – some would say decisive – role he played in turning out the youth vote for Trump’s presidential election victory in 2024. But it is important to recognise how significant he had become as a public leader for what a growing number of scholars have referred to as white Christian nationalism.

While there is some variation in political views and theological beliefs among white Christian nationalists, a central, shared conviction is that the US was originally established as a Christian nation. For Christian nationalists, the idea of the separation of church and state is taken to refer only to not having an official state church. The complete separation of Christianity from public institutions is anathema and secular institutions such as public schools and universities are often regarded as hostile ground.

Given their view of America’s original religious calling, many Christian nationalists therefore believe that secular, liberal society is in terminal crisis. So America will only be put right when it returns to Christian laws or principles. This view of political disagreement is inherently binary. There are those who trust in God and support God’s work to transform society. Then there are those who oppose it. These people are mired in spiritual darkness.

Kirk’s Christian nationalist views and activism were not always comfortable watching. For example, along with others on the Christian right, Kirk publicly and vehemently challenged the place and legacy of Martin Luther King Jr, a hugely honoured figure in the US. In 2024, he chose the week in which the US celebrates a national holiday in honour of the murdered civil rights leader to label King “a serial adulterer, an alleged rapist, a reparations proponent, and a race Marxist”.

His organisation, Turning Point USA, also created Professor Watchlist. This online resource encouraged conservative students to name and shame college professors who had what were judged to be problematic views or activism linked to categories including “antifa”, “socialism” and “feminism”.

But while there is an element to white Christian nationalism which risks overturning basic democratic principles (as shown by the insurrection of January 6 2021), Kirk also had a better legacy. He became widely known on social media for his roadshows on college campuses which invited students to debate with him. He would put forward his views robustly, but also listened to his opponents.

These roadshows could be challenging for more liberally inclined students unused to having to defend their views. But at their best they provided surprising opportunities to find common ground. In one filmed discussion, for example, a feminist student had an engaged and respectful discussion with Kirk about his views about essential differences between men and women. They also agreed about the harmful effects of some forms of masculinity and the normalisation of pornography in youth culture. He maintained this commitment to these open public events despite the risks involved. It ultimately cost him his life.

Debate over Kirk’s legacy

This ambivalence between conflict and democratic engagement in Kirk’s work and the wider Christian nationalist movement is now finding expression in responses to his murder. On Fox News, as news of his death broke, shocked and distressed reaction nonetheless highlighted an interesting divide in the commentary. There were those who wanted to see this a turning point in the battle against the side of evil, the people who opposed his Christian mission. But others saw in his legacy a commitment to engagement and debate with those whom he disagreed with.

It remains to be seen which side of this legacy wins out. It should be observed, however, that much of Kirk’s following takes its cues from the current incumbent of the White House, whose instinct is usually to lean into division. And it was not different when the US president expressed his grief and anger at Kirk’s assassination, blaming the “radical left” for rising political violence in the US.

Most of the American people are neither ardent liberals nor committed Christian nationalists. But there is an ever-deepening political divide between those on the political left and right who no longer see each other as decent, trustworthy fellow citizens. As the political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt have argued, such polarisation is often a route to the death of true democracy.

At this moment of crisis, America – and the watching world – need to hope and work hard to ensure that Kirk’s legacy of democratic engagement and debate wins out. If this does not happen, the future for America is looking bleaker today.

Gordon Lynch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Charlie Kirk: why the battle over his legacy will divide even his most ardent admirers – https://theconversation.com/charlie-kirk-why-the-battle-over-his-legacy-will-divide-even-his-most-ardent-admirers-265116

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Melissa Butcher, Professor Emeritus, Social and Cultural Geography, Royal Holloway University of London

In December 2021, I was in an exhibition hall in Phoenix, Arizona, with 10,000 young people who had come to hear a lineup of “America first” speakers, from Tucker Carlson to Ted Cruz. This was AmericaFest, an annual rally led by Turning Point USA, a conservative youth organisation whose founder and CEO, Charlie Kirk, was murdered on September 10.

I have spent the past four years listening most days to Kirk’s view of the world while carrying out research for my upcoming book, The Trouble With Freedom. He was charismatic, combative and at times inflammatory. But he was also strategic and clever.

He loved the US, freedom, family and football, and possessed an immense drive to “save America” from what he felt was its decline from greatness. With a national radio show and speaking tours focused on university campuses, his platform reached millions. There were times when he disseminated disinformation, but there were also times when I found myself agreeing with him.

Kirk was emblematic of a country polarised and imploding. At AmericaFest, and across a constellation of organisations and commentators working to “save freedom, save America”, the US is divided into those who are “loved” and those who are “hated”. This division is mirrored in progressive or liberal spheres.

Retribution is threatened and others are blamed. Opposing sides, each struggling for “the soul of the nation”, define the other by emotional indicators such as “angry”, “bitter”, “miserable”, “destroying”, “vicious”, “menacing”, “thugs”, “extremists”, “resentful”, “weak” or “unhinged”.

These sentiments serve a purpose. As cultural theorist Sara Ahmed argued in her 2004 book, The Cultural Politics of Emotion, it is through intensifying emotions that an “other” takes shape.

But while sharing emotions – rage as well as love – creates bonds, it also drives us away from others. This was something I experienced at AmericaFest as presenters repeatedly told the 10,000 young people present that people like me – childless, unmarried, atheist academics – hated them for being conservatives.

As people arrange themselves – where they live and who they socialise with – on the basis of how they feel, the end result can be a form of “partisan segregation”. Democrats and Republicans now appear increasingly unlikely to live with those who hold different political views.

Faced with rapid and profound changes, the idea of America and what it represents – freedom and prosperity – is slipping out of reach for some. This is creating feelings of loss and anger. In discussions I held with people from across the political spectrum, in social clubs, shooting ranges, workplaces and homes, people named points of cultural rupture.

Conversations were haunted by a feeling that community is breaking down. The promise of an affluent future is disappearing in the face of environmental collapse and successive financial crises. Deindustrialisation and the shift to a digital economy brings with it precarity. And fractious governance oversees divisions along generational, gendered, class, racial, religious, and rural and urban lines.

How people live together, and how they remember, has changed. The result is an anxiety-inducing realisation that safety can be contingent, random, luck of birth or where you happen to sit on a bus. Cultural breakdown can be watched incessantly, on repeat and archived for future reference as we doom scroll on our phones.

Responses to this rupturing and reshaping of life that was once taken for granted can range from psychological discomfort to murderous rage, as the world has just seen with Kirk’s assassination.

The US president, Donald Trump, understands this response and exacerbates it. He focuses on law and order, dystopian cities and out of control borders. He talks of a third world war not being far away, increasing anxiety and the subsequent desire for firmer ground, or a strong leader, to hang on to.

“Liberal” criticism of nationalist or populist responses neglects the pain some feel in managing change and the fears of being unsafe that go with it. This entrenches divisions further. More than just “angry Trump supporters” suffering from the loss of conservative leadership, the 2024 US election results suggest there is a broad spectrum of people who felt uncomfortable with a changing America that Democrats were held responsible for.

This is what Kirk tapped into and is encapsulated by Ines, one of the gen Z participants in my research. She said “generations that are growing up now don’t know a world where there wasn’t a school shooting every week … we were born into disaster and like our world is literally dying. So it’s like our generation doesn’t know a time when things were safe and comfortable.”

These divisions – alongside increasing inequalities, the misinformation and disinformation spread on social media and paralysed political systems – appear to be sending us collectively backwards into violent autocracy.

Even if it doesn’t feel like it right now, we can find ways to handle change and the emotions that come with it. In every conversation I’ve had across the political spectrum in the US, people talk about wanting to be part of something bigger – to care about more than just themselves, or to feel safe again through community. There’s a longing to bring back a sense of connection and care.

Even at their most angry, conversations indicated a desire to live in meaningful, caring relationships. Without a doubt, too much love and the boundaries of community become hard and less adaptable to change. But connection can also hold the potential to work against feelings of loss, ambivalence, hate and subsequent violence.

Melissa Butcher has received funding from UKRI and the ECR. She is affiliated with Cumberland Lodge.

– ref. Charlie Kirk was emblematic of a country polarised and imploding – https://theconversation.com/charlie-kirk-was-emblematic-of-a-country-polarised-and-imploding-265094

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security, University of Birmingham

On the morning of September 10, Nato jets were scrambled over eastern Poland to defend the airspace of an alliance member against an incursion by Russian drones. It was the first time that the west fired shots in the Kremlin’s war against Ukraine.

This incursion marks a serious escalation by Moscow. But it also highlights yet again that the west has no clear red lines and is unprepared to respond decisively if red lines that were taken for granted in the past – like the territorial integrity of Nato members – are crossed.

This latest Russian escalation isn’t the usual war of words. It was only last week that Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, warned that foreign troops in Ukraine would be legitimate targets for his invasion force.

He slightly qualified his comments by noting that this would be the case “especially now, while the fighting is ongoing”. But the message was nevertheless clear. Russia will oppose any international security guarantees that involve western troops in Ukraine. This has been a long-standing and frequently articulated position by Russia. Yet, Putin’s rhetoric threatening to target western troops clearly ups the ante.

But these are not the only ways in which the Kremlin has markedly turned up the pressure over the past few weeks and months. Russia has also retained some momentum in its military campaign in Ukraine and has been further empowered by several successes on the diplomatic front.

On the battlefield, Russia has continued to demonstrate significant advantages in manpower and military hardware.

Where the entire Nato alliance struggled to cope with the incursion of just 19 drones, Ukraine has been subject to an intense air campaign with hundreds of drones and often dozens of missiles every night for months.

The attacks have become more brazen – recently targeting Ukraine’s government building in Kyiv. They have also become more deadly, leading to increasing loss of civilian lives. As in past years, Russia has also targeted Ukrainian energy infrastructure, which bodes ill for another grim winter for the country.

On the ground, Russian gains have been small and Ukraine has regained strategically important territory around the key city of Pokrovsk in the Donetsk region. Nonetheless, and this is what matters for Putin’s messaging, Russia is advancing, however incrementally and costly it might be.

Putin’s aggressive moves

Diplomatically, Putin received an important boost from the annual summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in Tianjin and subsequent bilateral deals agreed with China. He will have been cheered by the cordial relations on display between Russian, Chinese and North Korean leaders at the September 3 military parade to mark China’s victory over Japan in the second world war.

The Russian president can now be more assured than ever that his partners will have his back – economically in the case of China and India, and militarily in the case of North Korea.

Buoyed by such “successes” that his war machine will not suddenly grind to a halt, the Russian president felt confident enough to demand that Ukraine negotiate an end to the war with him or face the consequences of him ending the war by force.

Putin’s idea of a negotiated end to the war, however, is anything but that. What he has in mind is that Ukraine and its western allies should simply accept his longstanding demands: territorial losses, no Nato membership and no western forces to secure any peace deal.

This multi-layered Russian pressure campaign is not merely an accidental confluence of unrelated forces somehow magically lining up in Putin’s favour. It is part of a carefully crafted campaign for Russia to retain relevance in what will probably shape up as a future bipolar US and Chinese-dominated international order. If Putin has accepted Chinese dominance in Asia, he still sees opportunities for Russia to be the dominant power in Europe – and restore at least part of its Soviet-era zone of influence.

For that to be achieved, the Kremlin needs to demonstrate that Ukraine’s western partners are feckless in the face of Russian determination. So far, Putin is doing well. All of the deadlines and ultimatums set by the US president, Donald Trump, have been ignored by Russia – at zero cost.

Trump’s response to Russian drones in Polish airspace was a short post on his Truth Social network that indicated surprise more than an actual response to what could quickly develop into a serious crisis. Meanwhile, Trump has yet to offer his support for a bipartisan bill in the US senate to put more sanctions pressure on Russia.

Western response

Similarly, while European leaders have been quick and forceful in their condemnations of this latest Russian provocation, their reactions have, as usual, been at the rhetorical level.

Poland merely invoked Nato’s Article 4 procedure for formal consultations among allies in the North Atlantic Council. But the outcome of this consultation was little more than a meek statement by Mark Rutte, Nato’s secretary general, that “a full assessment of the incident is ongoing” and that the alliance “will closely monitor the situation along our eastern flank, our air defences continually at the ready”.

The statement by the EU’s foreign affairs chief, Kaja Kallas, offered solidarity with Poland and promised to “raise the cost for Moscow further by ramping up sanctions significantly on Russia and its enablers”. Given that the EU is on its 18th sanctions package and the war in Ukraine continues unabated, it’s hard to see a gamechanger here. Delivered the morning after the Russian drone incursions into Poland, the annual state of the union address by Ursula von der Leyen offered little more than confirmation of EU aspirations “to be able to take care of our own defence and security”.

None of this will have Putin worried. It should, however, worry Ukrainians and the rest of Europe.

Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

– ref. Russian drones over Poland is a serious escalation – here’s why the west’s response won’t worry Putin – https://theconversation.com/russian-drones-over-poland-is-a-serious-escalation-heres-why-the-wests-response-wont-worry-putin-265001