By David Larson

Carolina Journal

On Saturday, June 14, North Carolina found itself in the middle of two national stories about political violence.

First, an assassin targeted Minnesota lawmakers and their families. The man, Vance Boelter, had a list of around 70 politicians and some abortion providers who he apparently planned on killing, one by one. Before he could get too far down the list, he was caught, however. But not before he killed Democratic former House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband and injured Democrat state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife.

Hortman’s husband, Mark, who died alongside her, was originally from the North Hills area of Raleigh, where he graduated from Millbrook High School. He also attended both N.C. State University and UNC Chapel Hill. This hits very close to home for those involved in politics in the state’s capital.

The other national story surrounding political violence began the same day at the “No Kings” protest also in Raleigh. State Rep. Julie von Haefen, D-Wake, posted a photo of a protester holding a sign that said, “In these difficult times, some cuts may be necessary,” with an image of a guillotine and a couple fake decapitated heads, one appearing like that of President Donald Trump.

Von Haefen has since apologized and deleted the post, but major online conservative social media accounts picked it up, causing the post to go viral.

Of course a distasteful image of violence is not in the same ballpark as actual assassinations of political figures, but let’s not forget that there were more than one real attempt on Trump’s life during his latest presidential campaign, one of which leaving his ear bloodied by a sniper’s bullet.

This all happens in a wider context of other recent political violence, especially targeting Jewish people in the wake of the fighting between Israel and its Muslim neighbors in Gaza, Yemen, Lebanon, and now Iran.

In early, June, a man named Mohamed Soliman firebombed a Boulder, Colorado, solidarity walk for Israeli hostages taken by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2024. Soliman allegedly yelled, “Free Palestine,” and, “End Zionism,” as he attacked.

Only days before, Elias Rodriguez killed two Israeli Embassy workers outside the Capital Jewish Museum in D.C. while shouting “Free, free Palestine.”

A month before that, a man named Cody Allen Balmer attempted to burn down the Pennsylvania governor’s mansion, due to the state’s Jewish governor’s purported views on Gaza. The governor and his family were inside, and the mansion suffered significant damage.

Whether the disagreement is over abortion, the war in the Middle East, or the actions of the president of the United States, passions seem to be bubbling over into violence more and more frequently. Online “rage bait,” where social media algorithms use anger-inducing political posts to keep people clicking, certainly doesn’t help cool things down.

So how do we get out of this cycle? Here are three ideas that could help.

Finding spaces to interact productively with those on ‘the other side’

If you don’t know or interact with many people who disagree with you, it can become pretty easy to imagine them as morally or mentally deficient, or both. We all suffer from some moral and intellectual lapses, but it’s better to view this as a problem of degree rather than an absolute and permanent problem in your neighbor. Meeting them and being genuinely curious why they think what they think can help.

I’ve been fortunate enough to have participated in a few civic groups here in North Carolina that provide these spaces well. One is the Institute for Public Leadership (formerly Political Leadership). In 2011, I was a fellow in this nonpartisan training program for future political leaders, and it was a great opportunity to become friends with and better understand the ideas of progressives in our state.

Before that, I had started my own group on meetup.com called “Citizens Debates” in Durham that attempted to participate in this kind of discussion (or maybe just because I like to argue). The national nonprofit Braver Angels was specifically formed in recent years, by thought leaders like Jonathan Haidt, to address this problem too. I’ve enjoyed participating in some of their “Dinner and a Debate” or other events where those of various perspectives can meet.

If you don’t want to do something that formal, even just chatting with neighbors and maintaining friendships with those you disagree with on politics can go a long way to building the social capital needed for healthy civic culture.

Steelman your opponent’s views

I became familiar with the term “steelmanning” due to recent online debates. Rather than “strawmanning” your opponent, by coming up with a terrible, weak version of their view, the debate participants do their best to construct the strongest version.

This takes work. You need to read their news sources and opinion columns. If you’re used to just opening up the same website and reading the same framing on the same subjects, which likely leaves out other angles, it could be uncomfortable. But it’s necessary if you’re really going to take seriously their arguments and try to understand them.

It doesn’t mean you’re going to adopt their views, but it will likely make you realize your own view was constructed partially of straw and may need to be hardened some too.

Acknowledging common goals

When you’re talking with those of opposing views and trying to learn about why they think what they think, you may come to a startling realization: These folks actually want a lot of the same things I want.

They want an economy where everyone can have what they need. They want a justice system where everyone is treated fairly. They want an education system where every child learns to read and write. They want a foreign policy that protects the homeland and prevents bad actors from threatening the global order.

Fully realizing this can be an important step to humanizing your interlocutor. Now, they may have completely different definitions of justice, different theories on what would make an economy thrive, different beliefs on who should run the education system and what should be taught. And these differences are likely not trivial. But the common foundational goals are still important to keep in mind.

So, yes, I do think we can avoid spiraling violence and political extremism. But it will take work from people on all sides. If you don’t attempt to understand the other side, it can often seem like they’re just evil or ignorant. But if we have real conversations with them, give their views some respectful consideration, and try to build off common goals for a thriving, safe, and just society, we’ll be able to at least lessen the frequency of political violence.

David Larson is managing editor of Carolina Journal, where this column first appeared.