Populism and assassinations go hand-in-hand across history
Populism elicits strong emotional responses from both believers and opponents
Elon Musk wonders, in a now-deleted tweet, why Trump has been targeted twice for assassination while Harris has not (“And no one is even trying to assassinate Biden/Kamala”).
The answer is pretty simple: populists traffic in high emotion. They tend to arise and thrive in highly polarized environments. They cast themselves as champions of the "people" against perceived corrupt elites. They convince followers that they are all that is standing between them and the end of the world.
All that rhetoric incites strong emotions and create intense opposition, making them targets for those who feel threatened by their rise or policies. Populists, by definition, challenge existing political norms and institutions, often provoking violent reactions from those in power or their supporters.
Then there’s the reality that populist ideologies tend to attract radical elements prone to using violence. In general, populist leaders decry “enemies of the people,” and, as such, are often cast as enemies of state or dominant political order (to include democracies).
Populist leaders often operate in high-stakes political environments where losing power could mean imprisonment or worse. This fear can drive both their opponents and their supporters to consider assassination as a viable option.
Populist leaders typically leverage broader societal grievances and aspirations, making them symbolic targets for those seeking change through violence (the logic of kill the leader, kill the movement). It is to their advantage that they become targets of assassination because it “proves” the “righteousness” of their cause, perhaps even revealing the “divine” nature of their purpose on Earth — particularly when they survive an attempt (the Right’s belief that “God is protecting Trump”).
So, yeah, in sum, populist leaders differ greatly from traditional leaders, who draw their authority and legitimacy from recognized processes and institutions. Populist leaders are, again by definition, existential threats to an established order. They embrace that persona and, as a rule, welcome the perception of “chaos” created by failed assassinations.
That is why populist leaders are targeted far more frequently throughout history than non-populist leaders.
Harris is a traditional pol; Trump is clearly a populist leader. Harris sells — first and foremost — competency, while Trump sells the idea that “I alone can fix this.” As such, there is no cult around Harris, but there most certainly is one around Trump. Nobody is casting Harris as “chosen by God.” Her death by assassination would not create a martyr per se, while Trump’s most certainly would.
As a rule, then, non-populists face a lower risk of assassination overall.
Not a great mystery.
Populists tend to live and die by the rhetorical “sword”; traditional leaders do not. As such, populists make far more tempting targets — as in, anybody whose name becomes an “-ism.”
There will never be an Harris-ism because that is not how she operates, being more of a uniter than divider.
As for Musk’s musings? His political logic is often child-like, despite his obvious intelligence. He is firm proof that, just because you’re good at business, it doesn’t mean you know anything about political leadership.
But understand this: populists most definitely deserve their negative reputation when it comes to impacting democracy.
From the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change 2018 report entitled The Populist Harm to Democracy: An Empirical Assessment (key findings):
Populists last longer in office. On average, populist leaders stay in office twice as long as democratically elected leaders who are not populist. Populists are also nearly five times more likely than non-populists to survive in office for over ten years.
Populists often leave office in dramatic circumstances. Only 34 per cent of populist leaders leave office after free and fair elections or because they respect term limits. A much larger number are forced to resign or are impeached, or do not leave office at all.
Populists are far more likely to damage democracy. Overall, 23 per cent of populists cause significant democratic backsliding, compared with 6 per cent of non-populist democratically elected leaders. In other words, populist governments are about four times more likely than non-populist ones to harm democratic institutions.
Populists frequently erode checks and balances on the executive. Over 50 per cent of populist leaders amend or rewrite their countries’ constitutions, and many of these changes extend term limits or weaken checks on executive power. The evidence also suggests that populists’ attacks on the rule of law open the way to greater corruption: 40 per cent of populist leaders are indicted on corruption charges, and the countries they lead experience significant drops in international corruption rankings.
Populists attack individual rights. Under populist rule, freedom of the press falls by some 7 per cent, civil liberties by 8 per cent and political rights by 13 per cent.
So yeah, there are good reasons to oppose Trump as a populist leader who has given every indication that he is ready, willing, and believes himself legitimately able to circumvent democracy (basically, the logic of destroying the village to save it applied to the US Constitution).
Trump’s actions and words evoke political violence and thus attract political violence. By comparison, Harris isn’t “existential” anything. The Dems are full of up-and-coming leaders like her, whereas there is really only one Trump, which makes the latter the attractive target for those demented souls who, in their self-delusions, believe themselves anointed by history to do this or that evil/“great” deed.
Thankfully, those misguided types have ready access to high-powered weaponry throughout our nation.
[NOTE TO TRUMP: THAT IS A LEGITIMATE EXAMPLE OF SARCASM.]
Harris is far better off on the track she’s on: electoral defeat of Donald Trump. Meanwhile, Trump needs to ramp up the chaos, so these attempts are just what his spin doctors ordered, which is why they’re so gleefully translated into fundraising campaigns.
Trump’s calculation is that, the more “chaos” is perceived to exist, the more likely he will be to emerge victorious as the law-and-order candidate (as right-wing populists often do). The problem with his logic is social fatigue, which Harris’s candidacy directly addresses and leverages with skill.
The American people have suffered a national security fear-factor stretching back to 2001 and an economic fear-factor stretching back to 2008. We are exhausted, in many ways. Trump is promising that much more fear and chaos and uncertainty whereas Harris is promising an Obama-like chill, which is attracting more and more popular support.
Again, there is nothing surprising in any of this. Instead, we are seeing a political cycle of populism stalling out due to the unattractiveness of its leaders, who, in the case of Vance, openly admit to peddling fake stories in the name of creating “awareness” of “hidden problems.”
Me? I like the trajectory America is on right now with this election cycle. The sturm und drang will get even more intense, I am certain, but it will be worth the outcome if Trump is defeated and the Republicans come back to reality.
Enough of the navel gazing! America has serious work to do.
