Video Summary
Assassination is defined here as the killing of a prominent person for political ends, typically public and distinct from interpersonal or mob killings.
Political violence is longstanding in U.S. history — multiple presidents and many public figures were targeted from the 19th century onward.
Waves of violence rose during the Civil War era, the Gilded Age, and surged again in the 1960s–70s amid civil rights conflicts.
State-sponsored and covert killings (Indian Wars, wartime strikes) are part of America’s violent political record.
Recent increases in politically motivated shootings link to polarization, neoliberal-driven inequality, and the normalization of violent rhetoric.
It defines assassination as the killing of a prominent individual for their prominence, usually public and politically motivated, excluding interpersonal murders, lynchings, and ordinary criminal hits.
The civil rights movement and broader social upheaval produced intense political conflict and factionalism, which coincided with an escalation in targeted killings.
The speaker links neoliberal policies and rising economic inequality to despair and grievance—factors that correlate with increased politically motivated violence and mass shootings.
Yes — it includes state-sponsored or covert killings in U.S. history, citing examples from the Indian Wars, wartime strikes like Yamamoto, and programs such as Phoenix.
Responses range from unifying reforms (e.g., Civil Service changes) to repression or deeper polarization; outcomes depend on political choices after the event.
"Political violence is an integral part of our history, and assassinations have been extraordinarily common."
The definition of assassination is complex, as it typically involves a prominent individual being killed for that prominence, often in a public setting. This definition excludes interpersonal murders, lynchings, and mob-related killings for simplicity.
When people refer to political violence, they often mean riots, assassinations, terrorism, and insurrections designed to affect politics, which aligns with the broader concept of social violence.
Contrary to the belief that political violence is foreign to American culture, it is deeply embedded in the nation's history, with four out of 45 U.S. presidents experiencing assassination—approximately 9%.
"The first assassination attempt on a president was in 1835 when a crazed gunman tried to take out Andrew Jackson."
The first recorded assassination attempt on a U.S. president happened in 1835, when Andrew Jackson survived an attack due to the gunman's weapon misfiring.
Historical patterns reveal that numerous assassination attempts have dotted American history, with significant figures such as Abraham Lincoln and James Garfield also falling victim to such violence.
Lincoln survived several attempts before succumbing to an assassination that was part of a conspiracy aimed at destabilizing the government during the Civil War.
The link between high-profile assassinations and broader social tensions is evident, with events such as the caning of Charles Sumner in 1856 highlighting deep political divides leading to violent conflicts.
"What worries me now is the climate of tolerance for political violence that we have become accustomed to."
The historical context of political violence and assassination must be acknowledged, especially in light of recent events that reveal a disturbing acceptance of violence in political discourse.
There exists a dangerous duality where individuals denounce political violence but simultaneously call for aggressive measures, including civil war. This reflects a normalization that is concerning for societal stability.
The prevalence of violence has been seen in Congress historically, underscoring the challenges of political discourse that can lead to extreme actions, which have implications for the democratic process and societal cohesion.
"New Mexico before World War I was probably the only American state where assassination became a routine political tactic."
The video highlights the alarming history of assassinations in America, noting that nine mayors have been killed, with some targeted for political reasons.
Specifically, Anton Cernach was shot while taking a bullet meant for President-elect Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
In New Mexico, the assassination of territorial judges like John Slough marked the beginning of a series of political assassinations spurred by corrupt practices among local Republicans, notably the Santa Fe Ring.
The episode also mentions the killings of notable figures such as Albert Jennings Fountain and Pat Garrett during this violent period, which included the Kofax and Lincoln County Wars.
"During the Gilded Age, corrupt leaders became targets."
The Gilded Age saw the rise of prominent figures like James Fisk, a railroad mogul who attempted to control the gold market, resulting in his own assassination due to blackmail.
Henry Clay Frick, chairman of Carnegie Steel, survived an assassination attempt instigated by an anarchist connected to significant labor conflicts, demonstrating the interplay between business, labor disputes, and individual violence.
Such assassinations tend to reflect deeper societal frustrations, evidenced by incidents like mass shootings linked to corporate decisions.
"Assassinations accelerated during the 1960s and '70s as a byproduct of the political upheaval from the civil rights movement."
The video illustrates the marked increase in political violence during the civil rights movement, with notable figures such as William Lewis Moore and Medgar Evers falling victim to assassins.
Malcolm X's assassination by members of the Nation of Islam demonstrates internal conflict within movements advocating for social change.
This pattern continues with the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., whose death spurred nationwide riots and highlighted the escalating violence tied to civil rights activism.
"So, we do have state-sponsored assassinations in our history as well."
The video notes that historical acts of violence against tribal leaders such as Mangus Coloradous and Crazy Horse essentially constituted assassinations, occurring amidst ongoing conflicts known as the Indian Wars.
The narrative expands into the global context of assassinations, such as the targeting of Isoroku Yamamoto during World War II and the Phoenix Program during the Vietnam War, illustrating the United States' lengthy history of covert operations abroad.
"Throughout the '60s and '70s, there was an incredible increase in political violence."
The video discusses the political violence that surged following the rise of neoliberalism in the late 20th century, including attacks on public figures like John Lennon and mayors such as George Moscone and Harvey Milk.
A notable shift is identified in the 1990s, marked by a decrease in overall violent crime while simultaneously witnessing spikes in mass shootings, indicating a complex relationship between societal change and violence.
The discussion concludes with a commentary on the difficulties in understanding the roots of modern violence, highlighting systemic issues rather than oversimplified explanations tying it solely to mental health or gun ownership.
"Neoliberalism has steadily increased economic inequality to the point that people under 40 will likely never afford a house or possess a steady living."
The ongoing economic disparities stemming from neoliberal policies have heightened the feelings of despair and hopelessness among younger generations in the U.S. This growing inequality correlates with rising instances of violence, including mass shootings, which are often rooted in social and economic frustrations.
The easy access to firearms and knowledge of past shooters contributes to these tragic events, indicating a troubling trend in American society where individuals resort to violence as a form of political expression.
"Many mass shooters are explicitly enacting some political manifesto they often post beforehand."
Incidents like the 2011 Tucson shooting targeting Gabby Giffords and the 2015 Charleston church shooting highlight how political motives can drive mass shootings.
The trend escalated further with various violent attacks aimed at politicians and public figures, revealing a pattern where political polarization feeds into real-world violence, including assassination attempts motivated by extreme political beliefs.
"After the election came the healthcare CEO's assassination."
Political violence surged in the wake of contentious events, including the January 6th insurrection, which was primarily driven by MAGA-aligned groups.
The 2018 attempt on high-profile political figures and the assassinations highlight a disturbing escalation in political violence, suggesting a normalization of violent acts for political ends within certain factions of American society.
"The administration literally deleted a study proving that rightists are far more dangerous because they wanted political violence."
The current political climate has fostered an environment where state-sanctioned violence and extremist behavior are more evident. Policies have emerged that not only tolerate such actions but also encourage the labeling of dissenters as enemies of the state.
This shift allows for a dangerous manipulation of the narrative around political violence, which in turn could lead to further escalation and possibly endorse actions that were historically viewed as unacceptable in a democratic society.
"Violence is a manifestation of change."
"This current strain of violence is a result of that polarization."
"If you take the perpetrator's side, then you support murder and are therefore a reprehensible human being."
"Responses to assassination can either be unifying or divisive."
"Those in power choose how they will react to an assassination. Republicans want to continue down the path of political violence that they ultimately created."
The speaker discusses how political responses to assassinations can perpetuate violence, highlighting a specific political landscape where certain groups may benefit from creating martyrs. This reaction often overlooks deeper issues that fuel violence, leading society further into a state that can resemble fascism.
The commentary emphasizes the targeting of marginalized groups such as trans individuals, immigrants, and intellectuals, calling attention to societal attempts to ostracize those seeking better lives or critical of authority.
"Assassination only hurts the movement it purports to support. It gives reason to persecute anyone vaguely affiliated."
The speaker asserts that acts of assassination often backfire on the movements they intend to support and provide justification for the persecution of individuals associated with them, regardless of their involvement.
A significant point made is that resorting to violence does not achieve justice and only detracts from the underlying issues, asserting the importance of understanding the broader implications of political violence rather than focusing solely on individual cases.
"Violence is a manifestation of change."
A comparison is made between current political violence and instances from the past, specifically noting the escalated violence seen during the 1960s and the conflicts leading to the American civil war.
The speaker encourages the audience to look beyond the individual motivations of perpetrators and victims, suggesting that the essence of violence reflects societal changes and conflicts, underscoring the cyclical nature of political unrest.
"I am living under the threat of violence constantly."
The speaker shifts to a personal narrative that highlights the omnipresent nature of perceived threats in contemporary society, illustrated humorously with pet interactions.
This anecdote serves to humanize the broader discussion of political violence, reinforcing the sentiment that the implications of such violence extend beyond political realms into personal life and emotional well-being.
