Experts say furor over Charlie Kirk shooting misses broader drivers of political violence

The furor over the fatal shooting of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk last week quickly spiraled into partisan blame, with some conservatives characterizing the shooter as a far-left Democrat and others on the left circulating unfounded theories about the shooter’s supposed affiliations. A political violence scholar warns that such quick reads miss a broader set of conditions that enable violence and that transcend any single party or ideology.

Arie Perliger, a criminology professor at UMass Lowell who has studied hundreds of political assassinations from the past century, argues that political violence typically results from two interlocking conditions: increasing political polarization and a growing conviction among disaffected actors that the political system is ineffective. In a discussion with Vox, he described political assassination as a rapid shock to the system that can be used to promote a nascent agenda when other avenues appear blocked. He highlighted that the reasons assassins act often unfold in ways that are hard to parse from the outside, especially when the public expects a straightforward ideological thread behind violence.

Perliger notes that focusing on the shooter’s explicit political beliefs is frequently unproductive. “Each side picks the details that fit their own narratives,” he told Vox, emphasizing that probing the broader environment yields more actionable insights. He pointed to a broader pattern in American politics: polarization has frayed institutions, reducing incentives for bipartisan policymaking and normalizing the use of political violence as a tool to advance goals when conventional channels feel dysfunctional.

The scholar’s data set includes roughly 700 political assassinations dating back to World War II, encompassing not only elected officials but judges and other figures connected to the political system. A consistent finding across cases is that violence often arises when groups or individuals feel the system cannot deliver change. When resources, time, money and mobilization are required to push a political program, some actors see violence as a shortcut to influence. As movements have shifted from formal organizations to more decentralized or virtual forms—emphasizing direct action over institution-building—the number of lone actors and spontaneous acts has grown, Perliger argues. This shift helps explain why the discourse surrounding recent incidents often centers on the individual attacker rather than an organized movement.

The interview also touches on how polarization and distrust feed a feedback loop: politicians have little incentive to reach across the aisle, and each policy fight is framed as existential, deepening the sense that compromise is futile. Perliger said that this dynamic creates a vacuum in which dissent can harden into nihilism, with some people concluding that institutions do not function and that drastic action is the only way to be heard. He acknowledged that colleagues may resist his framing, but he argued that the broader conditions—not any single act—warrant attention for understanding how such violence becomes possible.

“In a different environment, people like Tyler Robinson would have constructive outlets for their concerns,” Perliger said, referring to the shooter in Kirk’s case. He also noted that the incident highlights a troubling trend: violence outside the traditional political system now intersects with campus life, where universities once served as forums for debate but are increasingly seen as spaces where confrontation and performative politics predominate. The result, he suggested, is a political culture that is combustible both online and on campus, with the potential to normalize extreme actions rather than deter them.

The discussion also underscores the complexity of political violence beyond any one party or movement. For example, historical cases show that even individuals who act within a given political milieu can diverge from the expected ideological script; in one cited case, a gunman who targeted a campaign event for a Republican-leaning figure was itself a registered Republican who had donated to a Democratic candidate, illustrating how simple labels can mask a more intricate set of influences. Perliger argued that the main takeaway is not to demonize a single side but to address the broader conditions that enable violence: polarization, distrust, and a government that many perceive as failing to address citizens’ concerns.

Looking ahead, Perliger said the most effective leadership would demonstrate bipartisan cooperation and signal to constituents that the other side is not the enemy. He contended that visible, sustained cross-aisle collaboration would provide a counterexample to the current climate of polarization and would help restore trust in democratic processes. Without such leadership, he warned, the environment will continue to create vulnerabilities that could be exploited by future actors seeking to advance a cause through violence.

The interview also highlights two notable shifts in how political violence is understood. First, the escalation of violence outside traditional political institutions raises questions about how influencers, organizers, and activists interact with public platforms and audiences, expanding the scope of what counts as political violence. Second, the campus setting underscores a broader trend: as universities become more polarized and risk-averse, they risk retreating from robust intellectual exchange and instead hosting intensified, often performative political conflict. In such an atmosphere, the conditions that Perliger identifies—polarization, distrust, and institutional dysfunction—will likely continue to shape the risks of political violence for the foreseeable future.