Political Violence, Competence, and the Dangerous Illusion of “Effectiveness”
In modern American politics, it is unfortunately no longer shocking to hear of attempted or actual acts of violence against public figures. From failed plots against prominent politicians such as Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi to the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk, political violence has become a grim feature of our era. These events are always tragic, but they also raise difficult questions about how such attacks are carried out and what they reveal about the individuals behind them.
Most attempted acts of leftist political violence in the United States share a common theme: sloppiness. Many perpetrators are impulsive, ill-prepared, and ultimately unsuccessful. Security forces and law enforcement agencies have disrupted numerous plots precisely because the actors lacked the planning, skill, or discipline required to execute them. This incompetence does not make the attempts less dangerous, but it does limit their likelihood of success.
The killing of Charlie Kirk, however, stands out for its chilling precision. By all accounts, the assassin managed to fire a long-range shot in a crowded setting, inflict fatal damage, and then vanish without capture. The weapon was later recovered, and investigators identified a person of interest, but the immediate impression left behind was that of someone who operated with an unusual level of competence. The killer was, in the words of some observers, “a whisper in the wind.” Unlike the clumsy and chaotic attempts often associated with political radicals, this act demonstrated planning, patience, and execution.
That very competence is what makes the event so disturbing. An attack carried out cleanly, without the recklessness that usually exposes violent actors, underscores just how vulnerable public spaces and public figures can be. If even one individual with skill and determination can succeed where so many sloppy attempts fail, it erodes the sense of safety that undergirds democratic society.
When we step back and look at the broader pattern, these episodes suggest that the United States is experiencing something like a low-grade political insurgency. It is not a civil war, nor a coordinated uprising, but rather a steady drip of violence, threats, and intimidation against political leaders, candidates, and institutions. Consider a few examples:
Unrest among conservative crowds that acted to storm the US capital on January 6th but ultimately failed due to their lack of preparation. It was almost comical considering that some were dressed like they were attending Comic-Con.
The 2022 attack on Paul Pelosi, where a man broke into the Speaker’s residence with a hammer, echoing violent rhetoric that had circulated online.
The 2024 assassination attempt on Donald Trump, where a a deranged leftist shooter fired at him during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania, narrowly missing a fatal strike.
Regular disruptions of statehouses and local government meetings, sometimes escalating into physical confrontations, such as the storming of the Michigan Capitol by lefties in 2020, and the CHAZ incidents in Seattle where Anarchist and Commie insurgents actually took and held a few blocks of territory for several weeks before collapsing due to infighting.
The growing trend of threats against election workers, judges, and members of Congress, which has forced many into protective custody or caused them to leave public service altogether. Then we have the growing incidents of violence against Jews on campuses.
These are not isolated aberrations. They are connected by a political climate that normalizes rage, dehumanizes opponents, and increasingly blurs the line between heated rhetoric and physical violence. The “low-grade insurgency” metaphor captures this reality: a slow-burn campaign of scattered attacks and threats, carried out by individuals or small groups, which collectively undermine stability and erode public trust in democratic institutions.
And yet, it is important to stress that competence does not equal legitimacy. The fact that Charlie Kirk’s assassin was able to carry out the attack says nothing about the justice or morality of the act. Violence is not argument; assassination is not persuasion. In a democracy, grievances must be addressed through speech, debate, and the ballot box, not through the barrel of a rifle. To confuse skill with justification would be to grant terrorists and assassins a legitimacy they do not deserve.
The murder of Charlie Kirk, then, should serve as a reminder of two truths. First, that political violence, whether sloppy or precise, is always an assault on the principles of democratic life. Second, that the increasing sophistication of such acts demands vigilance, not just from law enforcement, but from all who believe in peaceful political discourse. We should be unsettled by the assassin’s skill, but we should be even more determined to reject the illusion that violence ever advances a cause.
In the end, competence in violence is not a virtue; it is a menace. And while the assassin of Charlie Kirk may have acted like a whisper in the wind, his competence echoes loudly as a warning for the future of our republic. We are facing a leftist insurgancy is getting more effective day by day.
Comments