Current U.S. Political Unrest: Assessing the Risks of Violent Populism and the Fragility of Democratic Cohesion

The contemporary American landscape presents a stark and multifaceted reality. Autumn foliage adorns the nation, football stadiums brim with spectators, and children map out Halloween routes—yet alongside these familiar markers of normalcy, shadows persist: masked individuals apprehending civilians, the U.S. military deployed in four major cities, a third state, and the nation’s capital, and elected officials advocating for radical political disengagement, such as Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene’s public calls for a “national divorce.” Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker further escalated tensions by asserting legal accountability for federal immigration agents’ conduct. This confluence of events has prompted urgent questions: Is the U.S. teetering on the precipice of instability, and if so, toward what form of crisis?

A New Framework for Contemporary Political Violence: "Violent Populism"

Ordinary Americans and historians alike grapple with this uncertainty, though few see a full-blown civil war—characterized by interstate military divisions or territorial battles—as the immediate threat. Instead, experts like Robert Pape, a University of Chicago political violence scholar, argue the era demands a novel conceptualization: "violent populism." Defined as a political dynamic marked by normalized acceptance of violence, this phenomenon sits "between civil war and partisan gridlock," Pape explains.

Real-world manifestations include January 6 rioters assaulting law enforcement, Luigi Mangione superfans advocating for executive executions, and the Trump administration’s rhetoric framing political opposition as "enemy combatants," with Trump’s pardons of January 6 participants and use of militaristic language ("training ground" for "enemy within") creating "permission structures" for violence in pursuit of his goals. The White House’s recent characterization of Democrats as "Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals"—by press secretary Karoline Leavitt—exemplifies this "us vs. them" rhetoric, amplifying divisiveness.

Historical Parallels and Modern Divergences

While historical analogies like the U.S. Civil War or Northern Ireland’s Troubles offer context, they fail to capture the uniqueness of today’s landscape. Unlike the 1861 Battle of Bull Run, where spectators brought picnics to a perceived "joke" of a conflict, modern surveillance, social media, and technological deterrents complicate traditional armed resistance. Civil War historian Manisha Sinha warns against framing today’s strife as inevitable, noting that in 1861, "most Americans saw war as unlikely."

Key differences include the modern surveillance state: Ring cameras, cell phone footage, and drones make paramilitary plotting near-impossible. More critically, the Insurrection Act of 1807—the legal framework for deploying military forces domestically—poses risk. Trump’s repeated threats to invoke this law, coupled with the military’s deployment in urban centers, has sparked concerns about public trust. As one Democratic operative notes, "the optics of ICE and troops on the streets instill fear, even without direct armed rebellion."

The Role of Political Rhetoric and Peaceful Resistance

Seth Rosenfeld, author of Subversives, highlights that "us vs. them" framing—perpetuated by leaders like Leavitt—may escalate violence, but not necessarily spark organized revolt. Greg Downs, a UC Davis Civil War historian, cautions against conflating current rhetoric with civil war: "We had one civil war; now we face paramilitary politics without large-scale armed conflict."

Historian Bill Ayers, who opposed the Vietnam War through militant tactics, offers a path forward: "This is a teachable moment. Resistance need not be violent; we can persuade National Guard troops—ordinary workers—to reject authoritarian orders by peaceful means, like placing flowers on their rifles."

Conclusion: A Fragile Moment Requires Vigilance

The U.S. stands at a critical juncture, where political rhetoric, historical context, and modern technology converge to reshape domestic stability. The "violent populism" framework illuminates the risk of normalized aggression, but peaceful organizing—rooted in education and community—remains viable. As Pape concludes, "The temperature is rising, but the path to resolution lies in recognizing the fragility of division and acting to cool tensions."

This analysis is adapted from Jake Lahut’s Inner Loop newsletter. Read previous editions here.