Trump and Political Violence

"What my representatives do reflects on me. And I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes." These are the words of Cole Allen, alleged to have attempted to shoot officials of cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump's administration and, potentially, the President himself during the White House Correspondents' Dinner Saturday evening. Since the attempted shooting, there has been considerable finger-pointing at the political left and accusations that the left's rhetoric has encouraged violence. After reading Allen's 1,052-word explanation for his attack on the dinner, I believe Allen fits a pattern of individuals who have concluded that peaceful change is impossible and have, therefore, resorted to violent means of change. I am fearful that as Trump continues to seize autocratic control of virtually all aspects of the U.S. political system, this phenomenon will become even more common.

First, a disclaimer that I feel is unfortunately necessary to provide. Explanation is not justification and certainly not support. By explaining the motives of individuals who have turned to violence, I am in no way condoning or supporting their actions. Those who believe that it is better to remain ignorant than to understand the reasoning of those who have acted violently are free to skip this post. To be clear, I do not support violence against political enemies in the U.S., not only for moral reasons but on a practical basis as well. The other side is simply better armed and willing to be far more brutal towards us than we are towards them. Even if we are willing to bring a gun to a gunfight, we will be outgunned.

Just over a year ago, I wrote a blog post that said:

If [the Judicial] branch falls under Trump's dominance as the legislative branch has, there will be no more effective avenues for peaceful resistance. Citizens can peacefully protest, but they will be ignored at best and arrested at worst. Opponents can try work stoppages and strikes, but if they are at all effective, the force of law will be used to disrupt the actions. John F. Kennedy famously said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." The same can be said about political opposition to Trump. If Trump systematically eliminates peaceful methods of opposition, he will make violent methods inevitable.

My fear is that we have reached the point where increasing numbers of individuals will conclude that peaceful change is now impossible and that violence is a justifiable choice.

Cole did not mention Luigi Mangione in his explanation for his actions, but a common philosophy is obvious when comparing the Cole and Mangione manifestos. Both individuals clearly believe that their enemies — health insurance companies in Mangione's case and the Trump administration in Coles's — have become too powerful and immune to any recourse other than violence. Mangione wrote that "United is the [indecipherable] largest company in the US by market" and that health insurance companies "have simply gotten too powerful, and they continue to abuse our country for immense profit". He concluded that "It is not an issue of awareness at this point, but clearly power games at play."

Similarly, Cole wrote that "The United States of America are ruled by the law, not by any one or several people. In so far as representatives and judges do not follow the law, no one is required to yield them anything so unlawfully ordered." Mangione viewed Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, as being responsible for countless deaths due to his company's failure to provide satisfactory healthcare. Cole, for his part, empathized with the victims of Trump's violent policies, saying:

I’m not the person raped in a detention camp. I’m not the fisherman executed without trial. I’m not a schoolkid blown up or a child starved or a teenage girl abused by the many criminals in this administration.

The roots of the turns to violence by these two men could even be traced further back to Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. Mangione himself made this connection in a review he wrote on Goodreads of Kaczynski's thesis, "Industrial Society and its Future". Mangione described Kaczynski as "an extreme political revolutionary." He then went on to quote several paragraphs written by someone else that Mangione said that he "found online." That portion of his review begins, "[Kaczynski] had the balls to recognize that peaceful protest has gotten us absolutely nowhere and at the end of the day, he's probably right." It continued, "When all other forms of communication fail, violence is necessary to survive."

The idea that violence is a legitimate choice because peaceful change is not possible permeates the writing of all these figures. Kaczynski's targets were those he believed were harming the environment. Mangione, of course, went after a health insurance executive, and Cole attacked the Trump administration. All three saw themselves working for the greater good by attacking enemies that were impervious to non-violent interaction.

As I wrote in the blog post that I quoted above, the Trump administration has taken a number of steps to prevent peaceful political change. The Republican-led Congress has acted as nothing but a rubber stamp, approving all of Trump's actions and doing nothing to support the rule of law. Trump has attacked law firms, demanding compliance with his demands and resulting in legal action against the government becoming a risky prospect for attorneys. Trump has converted the Department of Justice into his own personal law firm, going after his enemies and protecting his friends. While the Judicial Branch has occasionally stood up against Trump's abuses, the Supreme Court, other than in a small number of exceptions, has resolutely backed him.

Most damaging was the Supreme Court decision granting Trump immunity for actions taken as part of his official duties. As a result, Trump can order the extrajudicial killing of as many seamen in small boats as he wants without fear of being charged with murder. He can start a war without legal authorization with no concern of ever facing justice for the action. Trump can protect those within his administration who commit crimes by using his power to pardon or commute sentences. One result has been Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection agents running rampant through American cities, arresting and killing U.S. citizens. ICE and CBP have challenged fundamental rights that were once sacred to Americans such as the right to be secure in your home. ICE and CBP take the position that they can invade private homes without warrants.

At the same time, Trump administration actions have increasingly normalized violence. Whether it is the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, the repeated murders of unidentified occupants of boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, the attack on Venezuela, or the war against Iran, the Trump administration has made violence a common feature of its policies. The assassination of foreign leaders was once prohibited by the American government. Trump has made such killings the centerpiece of his foreign policy. Conversely, Trump has used his clemency powers to free violent January 6 offenders. The message being sent is clear: the use of violence to further Trump's goals is legitimate. As Paul Waldman writes today in Public Notice, "[Trump] is to individual acts of political violence what climate change is to hurricanes: We may not be able to blame global warming for a particular hurricane, but we know it creates the conditions for hurricanes to be more common and intense."

One troubling aspect of Cole Allen is that, despite what many on the right (and even the left for that matter) have said, Allen appears to be fairly moderate. His manifesto does not contain ideas that are far from the mainstream. He described Trump as a "pedophile, rapist, and traitor". The pedophile allegation has not been proven, but Trump's ties to Jeffrey Epstein suggest that he condoned adults having sex with minors and may have even participated himself. Trump was found liable for sexual abusing E. Jean Carroll. The judge in that case later found that the sexual abuse allegation accepted by the jury was tantamount to rape. He stated that "It accordingly is the 'truth,' as relevant here, that Mr. Trump digitally raped Ms. Carroll." While clearly not everyone accepts that Trump is guilty of rape, the allegation is far from extreme. Whether or not Trump is a traitor is more nebulous, but given his close ties to many foreign figures, such a charge is, again, not outside the mainstream.

Much has been made of Allen's social media history, especially his activities on Bluesky. Again, contrary to what many on the right are saying, Allen's Bluesky interaction was mostly with moderates. He gave the most "likes" to Will Stancil, one of the most centrist personalities on Bluesky. While some have attempted to connect Allen to Hasan Piker, Allen actually reposted posts by others criticizing Piker.

Allen did not want to be represented by a government that was committing widespread violence, both domestically and internationally, and which was led by someone that Allen considered to be guilty of several crimes. Essentially, he was acting in order to not be one of those "good men" who do nothing and allow evil to triumph. Allen apparently participated in "No Kings" demonstrations. After one such day of protest in which over 8 million people took to the streets, Trump’s response was to post a video showing him dropping excrement on protesters. That shows the value of peaceful demonstrations.

If Cole Allen is, as he appears to be, a fairly mainstream Democrat, the fact that he resorted to violence is more concerning than had he been a fringe leftist. There are not that many fringe leftists, but there are a whole lot of mainstream Democrats. It would be very bad if more of them decided that violence is their only choice for seeking change.

I am sympathetic to the view that Trump has made peaceful change impossible. But I am not convinced that we have actually reached that conclusion yet. Rather than engaging in political violence that only benefits our political enemies, let's look to the example of Hungary. The Hungarian opposition faced far more hurdles than we face in the United States. If they could achieve peaceful political change, then we have no excuse for not doing the same.

The bottom line is that when people see no peaceful means for political change, they are liable to turn to violent means. Trump has done much to close the door on peaceful change. I would also argue that the efforts to engage in extreme gerrymandering also remove options for peaceful change. Is it fair that Republicans are at least 40% of Virginia's voters, but may only be represented by one Republican Member of Congress? No, it is not fair and I wouldn't blame Virginia Republicans who feel that democracy is failing them. But the same is true for Democrats in Texas who have been victims of gerrymandering. The same is true for minority voters who routinely see their political power marginalized through gerrymandering. If voting is eliminated as an effective means of seeking political change, what alternatives will there be? Not surprisingly, Trump has been at the forefront of using redistricting to weaken political opponents. That is just one more of Trump's contributions to making political violence more likely.

Trump is promoting political violence, both by engaging in it himself and by creating the conditions to provoke it. Cole Allen was no longer willing to tolerate Trump's leadership and, apparently, gave up on peaceful change. The futility of peaceful change is becoming more widely accepted each day. The further degradation of our political system will only nurture that belief. It will be a very dangerous situation across the political spectrum if more decide as Allen did that the only hope for change comes from the barrel of a gun. It is imperative that we work to maintain a robust political system that allows for peaceful change.