The New York Times published an article earlier today about the increase in political violence in this country and its causes. My initial reaction was a knee jerk denial. I didn’t want to believe that we’re seeing more political violence than we have in the past. My second reaction was to roll my eyes as the blame for this trend was put on the internet, on nihilism, on “vicious and dehumanizing language and images become common in American politics.” Then I started thinking about political violence in my lifetime and realized there was at least a kernel of truth in the Times article.

Going back to the 1960’s, the list of people who were either politicians or who had an impact on our political climate and who were targets of assassination attempts is longer than I first thought. Without looking it up, I came up with the following names: John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., Robert Kennedy, Malcolm X, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, George Wallace, Gabby Giffords, and Melissa Hortman. I know I missed more than a few. Some of those I listed lost their lives in the attempts. Others lived. Some, as with the attempt on Reagan by John Hinkley, Jr., saw bystanders being injured as well. Remember, the Brady Act came about after James Brady was critically wounded in the attempt on Reagan.

But those names represent just the tip of the assassination iceberg. We’re all familiar with John Wilkes Booth’s assassination of Abraham Lincoln at Ford’s Theater. Booth, a supporter of the South, was part of a conspiracy that targeted not only Lincoln but others in the Administration. This conspiracy made the action that night more of an exception than the rule because most US political assassinations have been made by people acting on their own.

Less than twenty years after Lincoln’s assassination, James Garfield was shot in the back. He died of complications approximately a month later. Twenty years after that, William McKinley was shot at close range. He died a little more than a week later. JFK was the last president to lose his life to an assassin.

But there have been others, too many others, who have faced assassination attempts. If you check Wikipedia for a list of US political figures that have been targets of assassination, I guarantee you’ll be surprised. We all know about the presidents, but we don’t tend to think about other politicians and others who have fallen victim, even if they didn’t lose their lives, to someone determined to kill them for political or social reasons.

What motivates these men and women is as varied as their targets. Prejudice, a motivation as old as time, is a common cause. Whether it is James Earl Ray killing Martin Luther King, Jr., because of his teachings or the murders of Jewish embassy workers simply because of their religion, it should never be excused, accepted, or allowed.

Others, like Hinkley, clearly suffered some form of mental illness. What else would you call attempting to assassinate the President of the United States just so you could impress an actress? Then you have Squeaky Frome, former Charlie Manson acolyte, trying to kill Gerald Ford.

Charles J. Guiteau shot Garfield because he didn’t get a patronage appointment he wanted. His feelings were hurt basically, and like a spoiled child, he struck out without regard for the consequences of his actions. His plea of insanity was rejected and he met his fate at the end of a hangman’s rope.

The NYT article notes two things that I think are important to consider. The first is a regurgitation of some of the usual pap about motivation, responsibility, and the like:

The United States has long glamorized violence. It has a higher homicide rate than other developed Western nations, and mass shootings have become routine. Recently, threats against public officials have soared. The number investigated each year by the Capitol Police, who protect federal lawmakers, has more than doubled, rising to 9,474 last year from 3,939 in 2017. Threats against judges have spiked dramatically  since Mr. Trump returned to office, according to data from the U.S. Marshals Service.

The allegation that our country glamorizes violence isn’t new. Those who say it point to violence in videogames and movies. They talk about how we have an Old West mentality of reaching for our guns instead of using our words and brains to handle problems. Yet they oh so conveniently ignore that many of those games and movies and attitudes they blame on our culture actually come from other countries. That doesn’t fit their narrative.

As for the increase in the number of mass shootings, that’s a deceptive comment based on the changing definition of what a mass shooting is. Currently, it is defined as three or more killings in a short period of time without a cooling off period. Those killings don’t necessarily have to be at the same location. Closeness in time and location are the key. Once upon a time, those killings had to take place at the same location or close enough to the same as to be considered one place.

While I don’t doubt the number of threats against our congresscritters has increased, I also find myself wondering if the numbers are really that much higher or if we should take the comment at face value. The number of threats “investigated” have increased. Does that mean Capitol Police used to be more selective about what threats they deemed credible enough to look into?

The second part of the article I find interesting—and that I’m surprised they actually put into words is this:

On the other hand, experts say the threat of violence by right-wing extremist groups, which have long been behind most domestic terror attacks, began to recede before Mr. Trump won the election, in part because their leaders were prosecuted after the Jan. 6 invasion of the Capitol, and in part because of expectations that Mr. Trump would win.

The first part of the quote isn’t surprising. The fact they admit it is. After all, the Times isn’t known for being understanding or sympathetic to conservative concerns. The last part is their shot at both Trump and Conservatives, implying without coming out and saying it that Trump will do whatever they want to advance ultra-conservative ideals no matter what it means for the country at large.

Here’s the thing, history may be written by the victors, but our country’s history isn’t that long. The lens of obfuscation isn’t that strong. We can look back and see that political violence has been a part of our landscape from the beginning. We are a country born out of revolution. We survived a civil war that threatened to tear us apart. We’ve become a world leader at times when nations elsewhere fell, their very existence as independent nations erased.

Still, maybe there is a grain of truth I’m doing my best to deny in the article. After all, Steven Sondheim, who many view as a grand master of American Musical Theater, wrote a musical about our political assassins and wannabe assassins. He titled it “Assassins” (Real imaginative, I know).

The truth is, if someone is determined to do something, they will try to find a way to accomplish it. Some plan and will adapt, determined to complete their mission. Some, like Sirhan Sirhan, will risk potential discovery so they look in their victim’s eyes as they deliver what they hope is the death blow. Some are sane, others not. But they are all part of a dark side of our nation’s history, one filled with more blood and pain than most of us realize.

Reluctantly, I have to agree with the NYT when it says political violence is part of our American history. I might not agree with the list of reasons why people turn to assassination as their means of change. But it is something we can’t turn a blind eye to. It is a reminder that we need to think before we speak, consider how our words might impact others, and be prepared for the consequences if we don’t.

Featured Image: Aftermath of the assassination attempt against Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981. Creative Commons public domain licensing. This file is a work of an employee of the Executive Office of the President of the United States, taken or made as part of that person’s official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, it is in the public domain.