By Maria Clara Santana
Dallas, Texas, November 22nd, 1963: politics as we once knew it is irreparably altered. The assassination of President John F Kennedy marked a shift in political reality, the repercussions of which are felt to this day. JFK’s murder meant that politicians were no longer untouchable figures, no longer out of our reach. They died, and that scared us.
The recent victory of Donald J. Trump has been marked by this fear. The constant threat of assassination – as many as 3 separate incidents – has followed his campaign across the country. From Pennsylvania to the West Palm Beach golf tracks, Trump has been terrorized.
Much like in 1963, the expected onslaught of conspiracies did follow; like JFK’s assassination, the Trump attacks were surely an inside job. Surely, a plot to weaponize the American people’s fears of the system, surely, an electoral tool. This leads, though, to the logical question: does being (almost) murdered actually help you win an election?
Kennedy remains a prominent figure in Americana, a cultural icon. Perhaps this is in part due to his personal controversies, including his infamous entanglement with Marilyn Monroe. But, perhaps, there is no greater statement than dying on TV.
To be clear, JFK was more than just assassinated. Nonetheless, reality is apparent: we remember his life because we remember his death. What to make, then, of those that don’t die? Those who evade death to raise their fists above their bleeding ears on national television?
Dr. Alessandro Nai, Associate Professor of Political Communication at UvA, studied an earlier instance of political violence during a campaign, alongside colleagues Patrick van Erkel and Dr. Linda Bos. The researchers investigated a November 2023 violent attack on Dutch politician Thierry Baudet. At the time, Thierry was campaigning for his party, FvD, a far-right organization which has coincidentally expressed its support for Trump and his victory.
The attack, while not increasing Baudet’s overall support, did shape the attitudes of his opponents, explains Dr. Nai. “After the attack, people that dislike his party (FvD) seemed more inclined to support violence, almost as if the violent event normalized violence,” he says. While it is still “too early to say” whether Trump’s assassination had similar effects on opponents, or on his support, one thing is clear to Dr. Nai: “violence against politicians can shift the boundaries of what is accepted as ‘normal.’”
The attacks on Trump, while more violent than those on Baudet, are part of a growing trend of aggression in political spheres. A similar case of an assassination attempt preceding a victory occurred in Brazil, where Jair Bolsonaro was stabbed during a campaign rally. The parallels between Trump and Bolsonaro extend beyond this, though; as Dr. Nai explains, they both exhibit “strongman” characteristics and a “disregard for political norms” that shape some of their more controversial claims. In Bolsonaro’s case, Dr. Nai believes the assassination attempt may actually have helped his campaign, making him “look tougher” and aiding the narrative of a figure wronged by the system.
Whether or not Trump’s specific case had an effect on his campaign remains to be seen, but as with JFK, Baudet, Bolsonaro and all other victims of political violence, fear is present. Perhaps more than anything, it is this fear that shapes voter attitudes in response to political violence. If those protected by 24-hour bodyguards and bulletproof vests are unsafe, how do we civilians stand any chance?
Perhaps, too, it is this very fear that drives political violence in the first place. Fear of a certain electoral outcome, fear that a candidate we don’t like will win. Ahead of the upcoming inauguration, let us not be so consumed by fear as to lose our senses: criticism without respect is cowardice.
Sources: NPR, CNN, Britannica, The Economist
