How Can Leaders Prevent Political Violence?

How Can Leaders Prevent Political Violence?

Nick Bovee-Gazett, Master of Public Affairs 

Published August 22, 2025 

Even before the ideologically motivated killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson and the assassination attempt on President Donald Trump last July, Americans were growing concerned about the risk of political violence. A 2024 survey found that 47% of Americans believed another civil war was likely within their lifetimes, rising to 58% among Gen Z and Millennials (Marist Poll, 2024). More troubling, one in five Americans believe violence may be necessary to “get the country back on track” (PBS News, 2024). While political violence remains relatively rare, deepening polarization, heated rhetoric, and the proliferation of firearms have created conditions that heighten the risk of escalation (Kleinfeld & Sedaca, 2024; Reuters, 2023; Westwood et al., 2022; Wintemute, 2021). Fortunately, leaders can take steps to reduce this risk. 

Risk Factors for Political Violence

A major feature of U.S. politics is affective polarization— Americans dislike one another because of their partisan affiliation (Iyengar et al., 2019). According to the American National Election Survey, 40% of partisans express extreme dislike for political opponents, and a recent Pew poll found that 63% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans view the opposing party as immoral (Iyengar & Tyler, 2023; Pew Research Center, 2022). Affective polarization interacts with factors such as leaders’ rhetoric and online disinformation, thereby increasing the likelihood of violence (Kleinfeld, 2023; Smith & Jilani, 2024).

The January 6 Capitol riot offers a stark example of how rhetoric and disinformation can incite violence when groups are polarized. Following false claims of election fraud spread by Donald Trump on social media, his supporters gathered in Washington, D.C., during the certification of the 2020 election. Trump’s call to action— “if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore”—fueled the violence that followed (NPR, 2021).

The presence of the Proud Boys, a right-wing militant group, at the Capitol on January 6 illustrates one avenue for how online conspiracy theories and inflammatory rhetoric can turn deadly. A global study of more than 100 countries found that social media disinformation significantly increases the risk of domestic terrorism (Piazza, 2022). In the United States, militant attacks and plots—often organized online or inspired by radical content from both the far left and far right—have risen. Although still low in absolute terms, such incidents have more than doubled in the last decade (Doxsee et al., 2022).

However, militant groups are not the only ones who are prepared to resort to violence. Since 2020, Americans have purchased more than 60 million firearms, with an estimated 7.5 million becoming first-time gun owners (The Hill, 2023). The assassination attempt on Donald Trump was carried out by a “lone wolf” attacker using an assault rifle. Although gun ownership does not inherently lead to violence, recent buyers—especially those purchasing assault rifles—are more likely to justify political violence and believe that a civil war is likely (Wintemute, Crawford, & Robinson, 2024). 

In an environment marked by polarization, widespread firearm ownership, and divisive politicians, a single act of violence can spark a broader conflict. Political violence spans a spectrum that includes riots, lone-wolf attacks, assassinations, and terrorism. Once such violence begins, it can spread like a contagion, compelling individuals to take sides and trapping them in cycles of conflict that overshadow their original political disputes (Kalyvas, 2009; 2019). The political instability witnessed during the 2020 election started with the killing of George Floyd and was exacerbated by tensions over COVID-19 policies and election denial, resulting in waves of protest, armed demonstrations, and the attack on the Capitol. Many of the grievances that led to that wave of political violence remain unresolved on both sides. 

In a worst-case scenario of escalation, extremists could be elected or otherwise find ways to weaponize the state against their political opponents. One historical example of this dynamic is La Violencia, a period of intense political violence in Colombia during the 1950s. There too, tensions were rooted in a history of partisan animosity and episodic violence. But the spark that started a decade-long civil war was the assassination of a reformist presidential candidate and the election of an authoritarian leader. By the end of this period, hundreds of thousands were dead from government repression and factional conflict (Bailey, 1967; Parsons et al., 2025). 

What Leaders Can Do

To prevent cycles of violence and strengthen peaceful democratic processes, systemic reforms are needed. Graetz and Shapiro (2020) argue that today’s polarization in the United States stems from economic and cultural insecurities, exacerbated by gerrymandered electoral districts in which only political extremists can mount viable primary challenges to incumbents. They propose addressing these issues through nonpartisan redistricting, expanded social insurance policies—such as increased support for retraining and an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit—and targeted investments in parts of the country that have been adversely affected by globalization.

Stronger gun laws and enforcement can help curb access to firearms by violent individuals, while social media companies must improve—rather than abandon—their fact-checking mechanisms to counter online disinformation. Frustratingly, the political compromises required for these reforms are hindered by the same affective polarization that increases the risk of violence. To break the impasse, leaders must foster conditions that enable constructive dialogue. History and social science point to four leadership behaviors that can help accomplish this. 

Denounce violence. Research shows that when leaders urge calm, their followers tend to listen (Kleinfeld, 2021). Political leaders must make it clear that violence is unacceptable for achieving political goals. For example, Biden and other Democrats were right to condemn the assassination attempts on Trump and ensure his protection. However, politicians should go further by avoiding the use of language that incites disgust or contempt toward opponents, as this type of rhetoric has been shown to increase the likelihood of violence (Matsumoto et al., 2015). 

Reject extremists on both sides. This is particularly challenging in a polarized environment where divisive rhetoric often yields political rewards. For example, John McCain faced backlash during the 2008 election for describing Barack Obama as “a decent man,” while Donald Trump advanced his political career by championing the Birther Movement. The threat of a primary challenger or being denounced on social media forces politicians who would like to work across the aisle to fall in line. 

Shapiro and Read (2013) argue that leaders need to adopt “strategically hopeful leadership,” to break the hold of extremists within their own party. This approach involves identifying opportunities to engage with moderate rivals, taking a risky but calculated first step toward cooperation, and empowering moderates on both sides through reciprocal words and actions. Nelson Mandela exemplified this approach when he recognized the apartheid government’s vulnerability to international pressure and the high risk of civil war if extremists on either side prevailed. Despite resistance from some of his allies in the African National Congress (ANC)—many of whom remained committed to armed struggle—Mandela chose to negotiate with South African president F.W. de Klerk to end apartheid. This was a risky move that could have ended Mandela’s political career or even his life. However, Mandela believed de Klerk was a credible negotiating partner, and although he saw him as an adversary, he later wrote, “I never sought to weaken or undermine him, for the practical reason that the weaker he was, the weaker the negotiations process” (Mandela, 1994, p. 612). 

In response to Mandela’s approach, de Klerk campaigned for a 1992 referendum to continue negotiations, despite pressure from his right to abandon the process. By 1994, the two leaders agreed to hold South Africa’s first election in which the black majority could vote. Although violence did occur during this period, the efforts of Mandela and de Klerk likely prevented far greater bloodshed and paved the way for South Africa’s democratic transition.

Correct misperceptions about opponents. Polarization and disinformation cause people to overestimate the extent to which their political adversaries support violence, which in turn leads them to justify violence from their own side. Druckman et al. (2022) found that partisans overestimate their rivals’ willingness to engage in violence by approximately 400% compared to actual levels. However, when individuals are exposed to accurate information about their opponents’ intentions, support for violence decreases by about one-third on average. 

Although recent research has shown that correcting misperceptions with accurate information is not always effective, or does not last, research on countering disinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic shows that misperceptions can be effectively corrected when trusted community members – close friends, family members, doctors, and religious ministers – engage in two-sided dialog and avoid making moral judgments (Bateman and Jackson, 2024). This finding highlights the critical role that everyday leaders play in providing fact-based assessments of political opponents’ intentions and dispelling inflammatory portrayals of them. 

Emphasize a shared humanity. Human beings are hardwired to think in terms of groups. This tendency makes collective action possible, but it also leads to "Us vs. Them" thinking. Its worst form is dehumanization, in which one group sees another as subhuman (Sapolsky, 2014). One study found that referring to a group using animalistic slurs – calling people “vermin”, “snakes,” and “swarms” – increases the likelihood of another group endorsing violence against them (Enock & Over, 2023). This kind of rhetoric leads to the worst forms of violence imaginable, such as the genocides that occurred during World War II, and more recently the mass killings in Darfur and Myanmar (Hagan & Rymond-Richmond, 2008; United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2024). 

One way to counter dehumanization is for leaders to speak of their rivals as individuals who share common interests and aspirations. In a 1963 eulogy, following the white supremacist bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham that killed four Black children, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. remained firm in calling for an end to segregation. He criticized both southern Democrats who upheld Jim Crow and white northern liberals who urged reformers to slow down. Yet he also said, “we must not lose faith in our white brothers,” and that the tragedy called on “each of us, Black and white alike, that we must substitute courage for caution,” (Tisby, 2023).

Although he was privately shaken by the bombing and told President John F. Kennedy that he feared the “worst racial holocaust this nation has ever seen,” King used the occasion to challenge his opponents while recognizing their humanity, even imploring them to join his cause (Eig, 2023, pg. 349). Through such acts of recognition, leaders can foster cross-cutting identities—shared traits and beliefs that bridge political and racial divides—which are essential for a liberal democracy to function.

Raising Expectations of Leaders 

In election after election, we have seen how politicians can inflame tensions, creating our current environment of affective polarization, gridlock, and a heightened risk of violence. If left unchecked, fears of escalating unrest—riots, assassinations, or worse—may be realized. Yet history and social science show that leaders can also reduce tensions and build bridges toward compromise.

Those seeking less toxic politics should reward leaders who consistently denounce violence, reject extremists, correct, rather than exploit misperceptions, and recognize the individuality and humanity of their opponents. We must begin holding politicians to these standards, but we should not stop there. Leaders in our online and real-world communities also play a critical role in fostering a more peaceful and constructive political climate. Influencers on TikTok and owners of tech companies should recognize that their platforms come with a responsibility not to spread conspiracy theories and fuel culture wars.  

This kind of leadership alone will not end political polarization; economic and political reforms are still necessary. However, it can create an opening for progress on the underlying issues and help prevent the worst scenarios of political violence.

Note: The views expressed in this publication are those of the student authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or positions of the Humphrey Public Affairs Review (HPAR) or the Humphrey School of Public Affairs.

References: 

Associated Press. (2022, June 10). EXPLAINER: A look at far-right extremists in Jan. 6 riot. Retrieved from apnews.com: https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-proud-boys-donald-trump-congress-government-and-politics-a8baa24af07b20ab792f4ef6f4481fac

Bailey, N. A. (1967, October). La Violencia in Colombia. Journal of Inter-American Studies, 561-575.

Barrett, P. M., Hendrix, J., & Sims, J. G. (2021). Fueling the Fire: How Social Media Intensifies U.S. Political Polarization - And What Can Be Done About It. NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights.

Bateman, J., & Jackson, D. (2024). Countering Disinformation Effectively: An Evidence-Based Policy Guide. Carnegie Endowment for International peace.

Bavel, J., & Boggio, P. (2020). Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour, 460-471. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z

Braley, A., Lenz, G. S., Adjodah, D., Rahnama, H., & Pentland, A. (2023, August 7). Why Voters Who Value Democracy Participate in Democratic Backsliding. Nature Human Behavior. doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01594-w

Doxsee, C., Jones, S. G., Thompson, J., Halstead, K., & Hwang, G. (2022). Pushed to Extremes: Domestic Terrorism amid Polarization and Protest. Center for Strategic & International Studies.

Doyle, K. (2024, January 17). United States: Intensifying Polarization and the Looming Presidential Election. Retrieved from ACLEDData.com: https://acleddata.com/conflict-watchlist-2024/usa/

Druckman, J. N. (2023). Correcting misperceptions of the other political party does not robustly reduce support for undemocratic practices or partisan violence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(37). doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2308938120

Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M., & Ryan, J. B. (2020). Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America. Nature Human Behavior, 5, 28-38. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-01012-5

Druckman, J. N., Mernyk, J. S., Pink, S. L., & Willer, R. (2022). Correcting inaccurate metaperceptions reduces Americans’ support for partisan violence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(16). doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2116851119

Eig, J. (2023). King: A Life. New York: Firrar, Strauss and Giroux.

Enock, F. E., & Over, H. (2023). Animalistic slurs increase harm by changing perceptions of social desirability. Royal Society Open Science, 10(7).

Graetz, M. J., & Shapiro, I. (2020). The Wolf at the Door: The Menace of Economic Insecurity and How to Fight It. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Hagan, J., & Rymond-Richmond, W. (2008). The Collective Dynamics of Racial Dehumanization and Genocidal Victimization in Darfur. American Sociological Review, 73, 875-902.

Iyengar, S., & Tyler, M. (2023). Testing the Robustness of the ANES Feeling Thermometer Indicators of Affective Polarization. American Political Science Review, 118(3), 1570-1576. doi:10.1017/S0003055423001302

Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States. American Review of Political Science, 22, 129-146. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034

Kalmoe, N., & Mason, L. (2024, August 8). How to Prevent a Spiral of Political Violence in America. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/how-prevent-spiral-political-violence-america

Kalyvas, S. N. (2009). The Logic of Violence in Civil War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kalyvas, S. N. (2019). The Landscape of Political Violence. In E. Chenoweth, The Oxford Handbook of Terrorism (pp. 11-33). New York: Oxford University Press.

Kishi, R. (2022, December 6). From the Capitol Riot to the Midterms: Shifts in American Far-Right Mobilization Between 2021 and 2022. Retrieved from acleddata.com: https://acleddata.com/2022/12/06/from-the-capitol-riot-to-the-midterms-shifts-in-american-far-right-mobilization-between-2021-and-2022/

Kleinfeld, R. (2021). The Rise of Political Violence in the United States. Journal of Democracy, 32(4), 160-176.

Kleinfeld, R. (2023, September 5). Polarization, Democracy, and Political Violence in the United States: What the Research Says. Retrieved from carnegieendowment.oeg: https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2023/09/polarization-democracy-and-political-violence-in-the-united-states-what-the-research-says?lang=en

Kleinfeld, R., & Sedaca, N. B. (2024, October). How to Prevent Political Violence. Journal of Democracy, 35(4), 35-45.

Mandela, N. (1994). Long Walk to Freedom. Little, Brown and Company.

Marist Poll. (2024, 21 May). A Nation Divided? Marist National Poll. Retrieved from maristpoll.marist.edu/a-nation-divded/: https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/a-nation-divided/

Matsumoto, D., Frank, M. G., & Hwang, H. C. (2015). The Role of Intergroup Emotions in Political Violence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(5), 369-373.

NPR. (2021, February 10). Read Trump's Jan. 6 Speech, A Key Part Of Impeachment Trial. Retrieved from npr.org: https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial

Parsons, J., Garavito, C., Kline, H. F., McGreevey, W. P., & Gilmore, R. L. (2025, January 27). Colombia: La Violencia, dictatorship, and democratic restoration. Retrieved from Encyclopedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/place/Colombia

PBS News. (2024, April 3). 1 in 5 Americans think violence may solve U.S. divisions, poll finds. Retrieved from PBS.org: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/1-in-5-americans-think-violence-may-solve-u-s-divisions-poll-finds#:~:text=One%20in%205%20U.S.%20adults,before%20the%202024%20presidential%20election

Pew Research Center. (2017, October 5). The Partisan Divide on Political Values Grows Even Wider. Retrieved from pewsearch.org: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2017/10/05/the-partisan-divide-on-political-values-grows-even-wider/

Pew Research Center. (2022, August 9). As Partisan Hostility Grows, Signs of Frustration With the Two-Party System. Retrieved from pewresearch.org: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/08/09/as-partisan-hostility-grows-signs-of-frustration-with-the-two-party-system/

Piazza, J. A. (2022, October 22). Drivers of Political Violence in the United States. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 42(1). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0743915622113376

Read, J. H., & Shapiro, I. (2014, February). Transforming Power Relationships: Leadership, Risk, and Hope. American Political Science Review, 108(1).

Reuters. (2023, August 9). Political violence in polarized U.S. at its worst since 1970s. Retrieved from Reuters.com: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-politics-violence/

Sapolsky, R. (2018). Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst. New York: Penguin Books.

The Economist. (2018, January 3). How political leaders shape public opinion. Retrieved from Economist.com: https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2018/01/03/how-political-leaders-shape-public-opinion

The Hill. (2023, April 21). Americans bought almost 60 million guns during the pandemic. Retrieved from TheHill.com: https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/3960527-americans-bought-almost-60-million-guns-during-the-pandemic/

Tisby, J. (2023, September 13). "Unearned Suffering Is Redemptive": MLK's Eulogy after the 16th Street Baptist Church Bombing. Retrieved from jemartisby.substack.com: https://jemartisby.substack.com/p/mlks-eulogy-after-the-16th-street

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. (n.d.). Burma's Path to Genocide. Retrieved January 27, 2024, from exhibitions.ushmm.org: https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/burmas-path-to-genocide/chapter-3/weakened

Westwood, S. J., Grimmer, J., Tyler, M., & Nall, C. (2022). Current research overstates American support for political violence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(12). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.211687011

Wintemute, G. J. (2021). Guns, violence, politics: the gyre widens. Injury Epidemiology, 8(64). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-021-00357-3

Wintemute, G., Crawford, A., & Robinson, S. L. (2024). Firearm Ownership and Support for Political Violence in the United States. JAMA Network Open, 7(4). Retrieved from https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2817319

Wired. (2024, May 2). Extremist Militias Are Coordinating in More Than 100 Facebook Groups. Retrieved from Wired.com: https://www.wired.com/story/extremist-militias-are-coordinating-on-facebook/

Wolfson, A., Kishi, R., & Jones, S. (2021, August 23). Armed Assembly: Guns, Demonstrations, and Political Violence in America. Retrieved from acleddata.com: https://acleddata.com/2021/08/23/armed-assembly-guns-demonstrations-and-political-violence-in-america/