Recent surveys suggesting that a majority of Left-leaning individuals believe an assassination of a political figure like President Trump could be "justified," have sparked intense debate about political polarisation and the state of civic discourse. While these findings, if accurate, reflect a troubling sentiment, they must be approached with caution, as survey results can be influenced by methodology, framing, or misinterpretation. Here I outline the reported survey claims, explore the dangers of such beliefs, and argue why endorsing political violence, regardless of ideology, is profoundly wrong, undermining democracy, human dignity, and social stability.
The surveys in question, reportedly conducted by organisations like the Network Contagion Research Institute, claim that over half of self-identified Left-leaning respondents view the assassination of President Trump as at least "somewhat justified." These findings, based on samples of over 1,200 U.S. adults, also suggest a significant portion of the same group extends this justification to other figures, such as Elon Musk, with figures like 55% for Trump and 48% for Musk. The surveys point to a broader "assassination culture," allegedly fuelled by ideological radicalism, feelings of powerlessness, and online echo chambers like certain social media platforms. While these numbers are alarming, their interpretation requires nuance—surveys can exaggerate extreme views through leading questions or fail to capture the complexity of respondents' beliefs. Nonetheless, the reported sentiment, even if overstated, signals a dangerous trend that demands examination.
The first reason such a belief is wrong lies in its direct assault on democratic principles. Democracy thrives on the peaceful resolution of differences through debate, elections, and institutions, not violence. Justifying assassination rejects the rule of law, bypassing the mechanisms that allow societies to address grievances collectively. If individuals or groups believe they can eliminate opponents rather than engage with them, the foundation of democracy—trust in shared processes—collapses. This is especially grave in a polarised era, where both sides increasingly view the other as existential threats. Endorsing violence as a solution only deepens this divide, making compromise impossible and setting a precedent where any leader, Left or Right, could be targeted under similar "justifications."
Beyond democracy, the belief is morally bankrupt because it dehumanises the individual targeted. No matter one's opinion of a political figure, reducing them to a symbol worthy of death ignores their inherent worth as a person. This mindset also risks escalating into broader harm, as political assassinations rarely occur in isolation—they inflame tensions, provoke retaliation, and endanger innocent lives. History offers stark lessons: the assassinations of figures like Martin Luther King Jr. or John F. Kennedy didn't resolve ideological conflicts but fuelled chaos and division. Believing such an act could be "justified" overlooks this ripple effect, prioritising short-term catharsis over long-term consequences.
The surveys' findings also highlight a dangerous normalisation of violence driven by ideological echo chambers. Social media platforms, where extreme rhetoric can spread unchecked, amplify feelings of despair or rage, particularly among those who feel politically disenfranchised. This creates a feedback loop where violent ideas gain traction, masquerading as moral imperatives. Yet this justification is wrong because it substitutes reason with emotion, allowing tribalism to override ethics. Political disagreements, however intense, do not warrant murder—an act that solves nothing and entrenches hatred. The Left, like any group, risks alienating allies and legitimising reciprocal violence by entertaining such views, as surveys from earlier years have shown similar, though smaller, sentiments on the right regarding other leaders.
Another reason this belief is misguided is its reliance on a flawed sense of justice. Assassination doesn't address systemic issues, like policy disputes or economic inequality, that fuel political anger. Instead, it distracts from constructive solutions, offering a false sense of resolution. If the Left believes Trump's leadership threatens progress, the answer lies in organising, voting, or advocating, not in violence that would martyr him and galvanise his supporters. Surveys from past years, like those from the University of Chicago, show that support for political violence often stems from distrust in institutions, yet violence only weakens those institutions further, creating a vicious cycle.
Finally, the belief is wrong because it risks societal collapse. A society where assassination is seen as a legitimate tool for change cannot function. Trust erodes, fear dominates, and governance becomes impossible as leaders prioritise survival over policy. The surveys' claim that 38% of all respondents, not just the Left, see some justification in such acts, underscores a broader crisis of civility that transcends ideology. If left unchecked, this mindset could normalise violence across the spectrum, endangering everyone. The wrongness lies not just in targeting one figure but in opening the door to a world where no one is safe from ideological retribution.
In conclusion, the reported survey findings, while potentially inflated, reveal a disturbing willingness among some to justify political assassination—a belief that is unequivocally wrong. It undermines democracy by rejecting peaceful conflict resolution, dehumanises individuals, fuels divisive tribalism, misguides justice, and threatens societal stability. Political violence solves nothing; it only deepens wounds and invites chaos. The Left, or any group, must reject such ideas outright, recommitting to dialogue and democratic processes to address grievances. Only through reason and restraint can a fractured society hope to heal, ensuring that differences, however stark, are settled at the ballot box, not with bloodshed.