Victor Davis Hanson Examines The Assassin's Creed: How Political Demonization Lowers the Bar of Acceptable Violence
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
The 'Both Sides' Lie: How Barack Obama and Media Elites Deflect Blame for Political Extremism
3:19
A Tribute to Charlie Kirk: The Dialogue Champion Murdered for Bridging Political Divides at 31
33:01
Russell Brand and Jack Posobiec Explore Spiritual Warfare Following Charlie Kirk's Death and America's Fragmentation
29:57
Victor Davis Hanson Examines The Assassin's Creed: How Political Demonization Lowers the Bar of Acceptable Violence
Victor Davis Hanson examines a disturbing pattern among recent assassins and would-be assassins in America, from Thomas Matthew Crooks and Ryan Routh to Luigi Mangione and Tyler Robinson. Hanson argues these attackers operated in a climate where extremist political rhetoric lowered the bar of acceptable behavior, making targets of those labeled as fascists or Nazis. He explores how celebrating violence against controversial conservative figures, combined with lax security protocols, creates a dangerous recipe for political assassination. This analysis reveals the darker consequences of political demonization in contemporary America.
Victor Davis Hanson opens his analysis by identifying four names that have become synonymous with political violence in recent American history: Thomas Matthew Crooks, Ryan Routh, Luigi Mangione, and Tyler Robinson. According to Hanson, these individuals share disturbing commonalities that reveal a deeper pattern in American political culture.
Thomas Matthew Crooks attempted to assassinate Donald Trump during a summer rally, coming within an inch of succeeding by grazing Trump's ear. The attack wounded two others severely and tragically killed one person. Ryan Routh made another attempt on Trump's life at a Florida golf course, where he positioned himself to take a shot at the former president. Only the vigilance of security personnel who spotted Ruth aiming prevented what could have been a successful assassination.
Luigi Mangione, the son of a wealthy family and well-educated, harbored anger about perceived unfairness in the healthcare industry. He assassinated Brian Thompson, the CEO of United Healthcare, ambushing and shooting him in what Mangione apparently believed was an act of justice against corporate capitalism.
Tyler Robinson, according to Hanson's account, assassinated Charlie Kirk. Hanson notes that while Robinson's exact motivations remain unclear, evidence suggests he had a trans boyfriend or girlfriend and associated with a group on social media that despised Kirk, potentially believing he would become a hero for the act.
The Ideological Pattern
Hanson argues that all these attackers shared a common ideological thread—they were all on the political left. While Crooks may have initially held right-wing views, Hanson points to social media evidence suggesting involvement in trans communities and furry subcultures, along with critical statements about Donald Trump. Ruth had expressed opposition to Trump on multiple occasions, sometimes in connection with the Ukraine war. Mangione positioned himself as opposing corporate capitalism and predatory CEOs, while Robinson's social circle openly despised Charlie Kirk.
Beyond their political leanings, Hanson identifies another commonality: mental disturbance. Yet he argues that two additional aspects make this pattern particularly disturbing—the public reaction to these acts and the security failures that enabled them.
The Celebration of Political Violence
Hanson describes a troubling phenomenon where segments of the extreme left celebrated these acts of violence. Luigi Mangione became something of a folk hero, with a reporter conducting an interview that included comments about how attractive and charismatic the murderer was. In the Bay Area of California, there were plans to create an opera based on his story.
The reaction to Charlie Kirk's assassination proved equally disturbing. Some people openly rejoiced at his killing, with individuals involved in education producing t-shirts depicting Kirk being shot in the neck. On some campuses, people mimicked the assassination in a macabre performance, grabbing their throats as if celebrating the horrific on-camera shooting.
This jubilation extended to the assassination attempts on Donald Trump as well. Social media filled with comments expressing disappointment that the attempts failed, with statements like "I wish he had hit him" and "too bad he missed."
The Climate of Demonization
Hanson argues that these assassins emerged from the shadows empowered by a climate where the bar of acceptable discourse had been dramatically lowered. When public figures like Charlie Kirk, corporate CEOs, and Donald Trump are routinely called fascists, Nazis, terrible people, or "the worst person in the world"—a phrase Hanson attributes to a former Speaker of the House who claimed it was merely a euphemism—it creates dangerous consequences.
This extreme demonization sends a message to people with lethal propensities that if they act on this extremist language, they will be canonized and considered legendary. The attackers operated under the assumption that their violent acts would be celebrated rather than condemned.
The Security Failures
The second part of Hanson's analysis focuses on inexplicable security failures that enabled these attacks. He questions how Thomas Matthew Crooks could get so close to a presidential rally and position himself for a shot at Donald Trump. The answer, he suggests, lies with Secret Service leadership—not the rank and file agents, but those at the top who failed to take adequate precautions.
The same pattern repeated in Florida, where Ryan Routh, described as amateurish and buffoonish, managed to position himself next to a fence in close proximity for a shot at the former president. How could someone playing golf—an activity requiring advance planning and coordination—be so vulnerable to an attacker?
In Charlie Kirk's case, despite known threats against him, someone was able to openly approach a building, climb onto a roof, and obtain a direct shot. Luigi Mangione apparently found it easy to lay in wait for the United Healthcare CEO without detection.
The Dangerous Recipe
Hanson proposes that a troubling laxity in security exists for controversial conservative figures that would never be tolerated for iconic figures on the left like Michelle Obama, the Obamas, or Hillary Clinton. He suggests that people within government and administration—at state, local, and federal levels—may feel that certain controversial figures who are constantly demonized don't deserve the same level of protection.
This creates what Hanson calls "a recipe for disaster"—the combination of unstable individuals who believe they will be psychologically rewarded for taking the life of a controversial conservative figure, and security personnel who may feel these individuals are not deserving of the excellent level of protection usually accorded to others.
When these two insidious facts combine—the lowered bar of acceptable political discourse that encourages violence, and the reduced vigilance in protecting those deemed controversial—the result is what America has witnessed: successful and attempted assassinations that might have been prevented under different circumstances.
The Broader Implications
Hanson's analysis raises questions about the state of political discourse in America and its real-world consequences. The pattern he identifies suggests that extreme rhetoric doesn't exist in a vacuum—it creates permission structures for violence and can influence how seriously security threats are taken.
The celebration of political violence by some segments of society, combined with security lapses that seem inexplicable for high-profile figures, points to a systemic problem. Whether addressing a presidential candidate, a prominent conservative activist, or a corporate executive, the principle remains the same: political disagreement, no matter how vehement, should never lower the bar to the point where assassination becomes an acceptable response.
Hanson concludes his analysis with a warning that this pattern represents a dangerous departure from American norms, where the protection of public figures and the condemnation of political violence should be universal principles, not contingent on whether the target is considered sufficiently sympathetic or iconic.
