Exogenous Shocks and the Behavioral Ripple of Recent Political Violence
(it's early yet, but this is what my eyes are telling me...)
As a political science professor specializing in political behavior, I often have to examine how exogenous shocks—such as high-profile acts of violence—can reshape public attitudes, mobilize previously apathetic citizens, and exacerbate polarization. The events of the past week, including the shocking murder of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk during a public speaking event and the resurfaced video of the tragic stabbing of a young Ukrainian refugee from late August, provide a stark case study in these dynamics. Drawing from anecdotal reports and emerging social media trends, it sure appears, to me anyway, these incidents have triggered a significant shift in political engagement among the "normies"—that is, everyday Americans who are typically disengaged from partisan activism, focusing instead on apolitical pursuits like sports, family, and local community life. We will have to see as the measurements are taken and data collected if this is true, but, it sure looks like something has happened.
From a behavioral perspective, these events seem to have accelerated a process of radicalization and activation on the rightward side of the spectrum. For political moderates and independents, the visceral imagery of violence—amplified through widely shared videos on platforms like Facebook and Instagram—has fostered a perception that left-leaning policies on criminal justice reform, such as bail reductions and prosecutorial discretion, contribute to societal insecurity. This aligns with classic theories of threat perception (e.g., Jost et al.'s work on system justification), where individuals prioritize safety and order, leading them to attribute blame to the opposing ideological camp. Consequently, many such citizens, who previously viewed politics as peripheral, now see it as directly impinging on their personal security and family well-being—echoing Maslow's hierarchy in prioritizing physiological safety needs. This likely has prompted at least a short-term surge in right-leaning mobilization: not merely a jog toward conservatism, but a sprint, making these individuals more likely to engage more actively in political discourse, voting, and perhaps even activism.
Intriguingly, this shift extends beyond moderates. Among those already on the conservative to far-right continuum, including MAGA supporters, the events have intensified existing grievances, and it sure looks like it has pushed them further rightward. This intra-spectrum movement is particularly noteworthy, as it counters the left's historical advantage in sustained activism. Conservatives, often characterized by higher levels of offline social capital (per Putnam's Bowling Alone framework), may now translate that into heightened political participation, resisting perceived encroachments like "cancel culture" with renewed vigor. The psychological mechanism here involves moral outrage and vicarious victimization: viewing Kirk's death as emblematic of broader threats to free speech and personal safety, individuals draw strength from the imagery, reducing fear of social repercussions and increasing resilience against leftist critiques.
On the left, the fallout presents a classic dilemma of party cohesion and electoral strategy. Reports of some progressives celebrating or justifying the violence—visible to normies through their social networks—are likely to alienate broader audiences, reinforcing narratives of extremism. This has likely emboldened the far-left fringe (roughly 5-10% of the population, based on survey data from sources like Pew), encouraging more radical actions that, in turn, further enrage the center and right. For the Democratic Party, this creates a no-win scenario: disavowing the far left risks fracturing the base and suppressing turnout, while accommodating it invites backlash from moderates and defectors. Historical parallels offer potential insights, from the 1968 Democratic Convention's fallout to more recent intra-party tensions post-2020, where failure to police ideological extremes led to electoral setbacks.
In sum, these events underscore how violence can serve as a catalyst for asymmetric polarization, deepening divides and perhaps even altering the electoral landscape. While causal claims require rigorous empirical validation—through pre/post-event surveys or social media analytics—the anecdotal evidence suggests that something has indeed changed over these past couple of days.
That said, policymakers and activists on both sides would do well to heed the lessons of self-awareness and moderation, lest they perpetuate a cycle of escalating antagonism that undermines democratic stability.