Bipartisan discourse condemning political violence has resurfaced since the Sept. 10 killing of Charlie Kirk, a right-wing public figure and political commentator. Both sides of the aisle are urging the public to have empathy for Kirk and his family and identifying what seems to be a rising trend in political violence. 

Others are highlighting the connection between Kirk’s controversial views and the manner in which he passed, while simultaneously condemning the violence done unto him and other victims of gun violence. 

Instances of physical violence perpetrated against public political figures like Kirk often get condemned swiftly, but really only scratch the surface of the network of violence and oppression that has sustained our country since its inception. If anything, Kirk’s death is simply a high-profile symptom of a much larger problem.

The general public’s narrow view of what it considers to be “political violence” is limiting the type of discussion and action that can be taken to prevent and remediate it in the first place. I argue that we start by looking at the World Health Organization’s (WHO) definition before expanding our own: 

The WHO defines violence as “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.” Already, we see how this definition implicates far more than assassinations (the more typically recognized form of political violence). 

Furthermore, we should begin to think about political violence as a structural issue: In “Violence: a glossary,” published in the National Institute of Health (NIH), the authors define “structural violence” as “the physical and psychological harm that result from exploitative and unjust social, political and economic systems.” By thinking about violence in this way, we are able to better dissect how instances of violence against political figures come to be in the first place.

A complicated issue like this requires us to consider the interconnections between government-perpetrated violence in order to understand citizen-on-citizen violence, like in the case of Kirk.

If we begin to consider political violence as a structural issue, we may consider how a variety of policies, past and present, enacted by federal and state governments are “politically violent”: the internment of Japanese Americans and immigrants during WWII; the razing of low-income and communities of color to build highways; the colonization of U.S. territories, like Puerto Rico and Hawaii; program cuts to SNAP benefits and healthcare (amongst other things) through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act; the overturning of Roe vs. Wade; current ICE crack-downs on immigrants — the list goes on. 

These cases of governmental misconduct are inherently political and fit within our definition of violence. This matters because it helps us understand the kind of environment and political structure our government is creating. Violent policies enacted by the government have created living conditions that may lead citizens either to commit violence themselves, become victims of it, or become desensitized by the normalization and routine of witnessing it in the U.S.  

The Combatting Terrorism Center at West Point finds that political assassinations are likely to occur when non-governing political figures are targeted either in weak democracies, authoritarian regimes, or periods of domestic unrest. They also find that the presence of marginalized groups and political polarization increase this risk. We can infer how these factors have produced an environment conducive of normalizing and perpetuating political violence in our country. 

This suggests that violence is not random, but rather a consequence of political structure and action. This includes citizen-on-citizen violence, as there are a multitude of policies that enable this type of violence as well: Our weak gun restrictions are strongly associated with higher rates of gun deaths. The lack of access to reproductive care in many states leads to doctors providing subpar care and strips autonomy from many citizens. Cuts to subsidies for low-income Americans leave them with worse-off life chances. Rollbacks on environmental protections expose Americans to harmful pollution produced by domestic and international companies and more. 

These examples display the interconnections between violence on personal, local, federal, and global levels. We can better observe these interconnections by understanding that structural violence and harm comes from past and current political processes we have in place. By tracing an issue back to its roots in federal or state policy, we are better equipped to address the issue.

While some may be quick to blame an increasingly partisan government dynamic for the observed rise of political violence, doing so is harmful because it ignores the role the government plays in perpetuating harm on its people. If anything, this dynamic stems from the harmful government structure described above. 

This structure greatly affects the lives of students everywhere, including at WashU: Administrative support for free speech on campus seems low, international students and students of color are fearful of being deported, and cuts to research and Pell Grant funding may stifle the academic and professional success of students who need access the most. These are just a few examples.

Decisions enacted by the current administration influence life outcomes for people across the globe, and its effects are being felt on campus as well. Having a wider working definition of what is considered politically violent allows the average college student to be more attuned to the diversity of fellow classmate experiences, especially those who may be more susceptible to the effects of certain government policies. 

Current and past administration policies continue to embed violence into our society, which normalizes it — this is politically violent. Expanding your notion of political violence to include actions structurally perpetrated against members of the general public is the first step that may allow you to more readily recognize harm done against members in and outside of your own community.