N※N

A new era of American political violence is upon us. How did we get here? How does it end?

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. upon-us-how-did-we-get-here-how-does-it-end.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Thursday, September 11th 2025 at 6:17 GMT by Los Angeles Times
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

New Era of American Political Violence: How We Got Here and Where We’re Heading

The Los Angeles Times article, “A new era of American political violence is upon us: How did we get here? How does it end?” (published September 11, 2025), charts a disturbing rise in politically motivated violence across the United States and asks the hard questions about the roots of this surge and the path forward. Drawing on data from the FBI’s Domestic Terrorism Dashboard, congressional testimony, and interviews with scholars, law‑enforcement officials, and community leaders, the piece argues that a confluence of social, economic, and technological forces has created a fertile ground for extremism and gun‑related violence. Below is a concise summary of the article’s key points.

1. A Pattern of Escalating Violence

The article opens with a stark timeline that links three defining incidents in recent years— the 2021 U.S. Capitol riot, the 2023 shooting at a Texas gun range, and the 2024 mass shooting in a Chicago suburb—to a broader trend of political violence. According to FBI data cited in the piece, domestic terrorist incidents have increased by 37% over the past five years, with a 21% rise in politically motivated attacks. The Times notes that these numbers far exceed the average of the past two decades, signaling a “critical turning point” rather than a temporary spike.

The author explains that many of these events involve white supremacist or far‑right extremist groups, but that the spectrum also includes left‑wing insurgents, anti‑government militias, and politically driven criminal enterprises. The piece underscores that the FBI’s Domestic Terrorism Dashboard has labeled the “high threat” category as the most frequent cause of injuries in the 2024 data set.

2. The “Three‑P” Framework: Polarization, Politics, and Platforms

Central to the article is the “Three‑P” framework—Polarization, Politics, Platforms—used by political scientist Dr. Emma McLean of Georgetown University to dissect the phenomenon. Dr. McLean argues that:

• Polarization has intensified since the 2016 election, fueled by partisanship that spills over into violent rhetoric. The article references her 2024 study, “When Words Turn to Weapons,” which found that 73% of respondents in a 2023 survey said they “often feel unsafe discussing politics” in public spaces.

• Politics itself has become a target. The Times cites an analysis from the Brookings Institution that shows the frequency of “political violence” in local news has risen by 28% since 2018, largely due to high‑profile incidents such as the 2023 shooting at a pro‑republican rally in Michigan.

• Platforms—especially social‑media networks—enable the rapid spread of extremist propaganda. The article follows an internal link to a 2025 study by the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), which documents that 59% of extremist content in the United States originates from “shadow” accounts on platforms like Parler, Gab, and TikTok.

3. Gun Culture and Legislative Gaps

The Times weaves a discussion of the United States’ “culture of firearms” into its analysis, noting that 41% of Americans own a gun, and that more than 1.4 million new guns are sold annually. Drawing on a 2024 report from the Pew Research Center, the article explains that gun ownership has not decreased even as political violence rises.

The article points out that existing legislation—such as the 2013 “Assault Weapons Ban” (which lapsed in 2015) and the 2020 “Violent Extremism Prevention Act” (pending congressional approval)—has failed to curb the supply chain of weapons used in these attacks. It quotes Rep. Maya Patel, who argues that the “real problem isn’t just the guns but how we enforce background checks and how the ‘Red Flag’ laws are applied”.

4. The Role of Mental Health and Economic Stress

While attributing most incidents to ideological motivations, the article does not dismiss the role of mental illness. Data from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) suggests that approximately 45% of mass shooters have a diagnosed mental health condition. However, the Times stresses that the intersection of economic hardship—exacerbated by the 2023 inflation spike and the lingering effects of the COVID‑19 pandemic—has pushed more individuals toward radical groups.

The article highlights the “Community Resilience Initiative” (CRI) launched by the Department of Health and Human Services, which aims to provide mental‑health resources to communities at risk of radicalization. An internal link directs readers to a 2025 policy brief by the CRI detailing pilot programs in Detroit and Baltimore.

5. Policy Proposals and Public Response

The article concludes by mapping out a roadmap for mitigation, drawing on proposals from a coalition of think tanks, faith leaders, and grassroots activists. Key recommendations include:

1. Expanding “Red Flag” Laws: Mandatory judicial oversight for temporary firearm removal.
2. Enhancing Digital Surveillance: Legislation allowing the FBI to monitor extremist messaging in “private” encrypted chats, balanced against First Amendment safeguards.
3. Community Policing and Counter‑Extremism Training: Investing in training programs that focus on de-escalation and cultural competency.
4. Addressing Socioeconomic Drivers: Infrastructure investments in distressed urban neighborhoods to mitigate economic grievances.

The article ends with an interview of activist Marla Sanchez, who argues that “the only real way to end this violence is to tackle the conditions that feed it,” emphasizing a comprehensive approach that merges policy, community, and individual responsibility.

Final Thoughts

While the piece is rooted in a rigorous analysis of data and expert commentary, the LA Times does not shy away from the uncomfortable reality: political violence in America is not an anomaly but a growing trend. By weaving together historical context, current statistics, and forward‑looking policy proposals, the article challenges readers to consider not just how we might curb these acts of violence, but why we allow such a climate of hostility to fester in the first place. The conclusion is clear: unless systemic reforms are implemented across multiple fronts, America risks sliding further into a new era of political bloodshed.