For many people, political violence used to feel like something confined to history books. Assassinations, attempted attacks, and national tragedies were events associated with another era, distant from modern political life. Today, however, those moments seem increasingly impossible to ignore.
For the third time in just three years, Donald Trump has become the target of an alleged assassination attempt. Last month, chaos erupted during the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner after a man reportedly stormed the event and opened fire, forcing Secret Service agents to rush Trump out of the venue while guests scrambled for safety inside the Washington Hilton, the very same hotel where President Ronald Reagan survived an assassination attempt 45 years earlier.
Beyond the immediate shock, the incident reopened a much bigger discussion: what do attacks against presidential figures reveal about today’s political climate? These attacks rarely happen in isolation. More often, they reflect societies already overwhelmed by division, distrust, and emotional exhaustion.
The attacks are bigger than the individuals
Throughout history, attacks against political leaders have often emerged during moments of deep instability and social tension.
The assassination of John F. Kennedy unfolded during a period marked by Cold War anxiety, civil rights unrest, and growing ideological fear in the United States. Decades later, the recent attacks and threats involving Trump are happening in a country increasingly shaped by partisan hostility, online radicalization, and distrust toward democratic institutions.
The same pattern can also be seen outside the United States. In Brazil, the stabbing attack against Jair Bolsonaro during the 2018 presidential campaign happened amid an atmosphere dominated by extreme political polarization and hostility between ideological groups.
And these incidents often go far beyond the president himself. Political figures eventually stop representing only themselves. Instead, they become symbols of entire belief systems. To supporters, they may represent protection, patriotism, or hope. To critics, they may symbolize danger, regression, or political destruction.
Inside the deeply polarized environments, there is very little room left for nuance. Political leaders become either heroes or villains.
When politics starts feeling personal
One of the most dangerous aspects of modern polarization is how emotionally personal politics has become. Disagreement no longer feels like a simple thing. For many people, political debates now feel connected to morality, identity, and even survival. Opposing political views are increasingly treated as threats to the country’s future.
When politics becomes emotionally charged, hostility becomes easier to normalize. And over time, hostility can evolve into dehumanization. Political opponents stop being seen as people with different perspectives and start being viewed as enemies that must be defeated at any cost.
That is part of what makes modern political radicalization so alarming. Experts on political violence have repeatedly warned about the growing normalization of politically motivated aggression, especially in the United States, after the January 6 Capitol attack. According to political violence scholar James Piazza, in an interview with The Conversation, the recent attack involving Trump highlights “how dangerous this political moment is in the United States.”
Social media turned politics into a constant battle
The role social media plays in shaping political discussion is one of the biggest reasons political hostility feels more intense today.
Platforms, originally designed to connect people, now often function as nonstop political battlegrounds. Every controversy becomes immediate, every opinion becomes content, every argument becomes a public performance, and outrage spreads faster than nuance ever could.
Algorithms reward emotionally charged content because anger generates engagement. A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) found that anger spreads faster online than non-emotional content, particularly in political conversations. The more extreme or provocative something sounds, the more visibility it tends to receive.
Over time, many users become trapped inside online echo chambers where their beliefs are constantly reinforced. Research published by Cambridge University Press argues that social media echo chambers contribute to political polarization by limiting exposure to diverse viewpoints and strengthening interactions within ideologically similar communities.
For younger generations, in particular, this creates an exhausting political environment. Gen Z grew up experiencing politics not only through elections or news broadcasts, but through TikTok videos, reposts, comment sections, viral debates, and endless online discourse.
Politics is no longer something people occasionally tune into. It has become part of everyday digital life, and in highly polarized spaces, that constant exposure can contribute directly to radicalization.
The rise of online radicalization
Another growing concern is how modern radicalization increasingly happens online.
Research published by Cambridge University Press found that belief in conspiracy theories is associated with greater acceptance of political violence, suggesting that digital misinformation ecosystems can gradually normalize extremist thinking. In this scenario, recent attackers are often self-radicalized through repeated exposure to this content across social media platforms and online forums.
That way, fear becomes amplified, anger becomes reinforced, and hopelessness becomes easier to manipulate.
Studies from the FBI and political researchers have also warned about the rise of “lone-wolf” attackers targeting political leaders and public figures in deeply polarized scenarios. While these attacks may be carried out by individuals acting alone, the environment surrounding them is collective.
The attacker may act alone, but the atmosphere surrounding the attack is collective, and this makes political violence complicated.
Distrust is making polarization worse
Another important factor behind modern political violence is the growing erosion of trust in democratic institutions.
Across multiple countries, people increasingly express skepticism toward governments, elections, traditional media, and judicial systems. In politically unstable environments, frustration can slowly evolve into the belief that democratic systems no longer function fairly or effectively.
A global study conducted by the University of Southampton in 2025 found that trust in representative institutions such as parliaments, governments, and political parties has been declining in democratic countries around the world. Researchers described the trend as a “warning sign” that could strengthen support for anti-establishment and more authoritarian political movements.
When people lose faith in institutions, politics starts feeling less like debate and more like confrontation.
That does not mean every polarized society will inevitably experience political violence. Most people who hold strong political opinions never become violent. However, deeply toxic political scenarios create conditions where extremism spreads more easily.
The post-truth problem
Besides that, another disturbing aspect of modern political violence is what happens after the attacks themselves.
Instead of creating moments of collective reflection or unity, many incidents are immediately followed by waves of conspiracy theories online. Some people claim the attacks were staged, others insist they were manipulated for political gain. Even violence itself becomes politically debated.
This reflects the reality of the post-truth era. According to philosopher Lee McIntyre in his book Post-Truth, from this perspective, people interpret events through emotions, ideology, and political identity rather than factual evidence. In this environment, feelings have more weight than facts, making it harder for societies to agree on a shared reality or process traumatic moments collectively.
What do these attacks reveal?
Ultimately, attacks against presidential figures reveal the emotional condition of modern democracies.
This scenario reveals societies struggling with division, distrust, radicalization, and the growing inability to coexist with opposing political views. They show how polarization transforms political leaders into symbols of ideological warfare rather than human beings.
Political violence researcher James Piazza talks about how that extreme polarization encourages the “dehumanization of opposing partisans,” transforming politics into an “us versus them” conflict where opponents are increasingly perceived as threats rather than fellow citizens.
And maybe the most unsettling part is not simply that attacks continue happening, but that society is slowly becoming used to them. Because, at the moment political violence starts feeling normal, democracy itself begins to feel more fragile.
————————————————–
The article above was edited by Isabelle Bignardi.
Did you like this type of content? Check Her Campus Cásper Líbero home page for more!