You May Not Be Interested in War with the Left, But the Left Is Interested in War with You

“Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow.”  

That was Jimmy Kimmel, the sleaziest and least-funny late-night “comedian” during a sketch on his ratings-challenged show.  

That slur, followed by last weekend’s attempted assassination of President Donald Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, brings to mind an old adage from Russian communist Leon Trotsky that, “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”  

In modern America, an unsettling variation has now taken hold:  You may not be interested in war with the political left, but the political left is increasingly interested in war with you.  

Not metaphorically.  Not rhetorically.  Increasingly, literally.  

The attempted assassination of President Trump represents just the latest example.  The would-be assassin, who left a manifesto soaked in left-wing sloganeering, marks the third major assassination attempt against Trump in the past two years.  Trump previously survived a 2024 assassination attempt in which a bullet grazed his ear, as well as a separate plot involving a sniper at his Florida home.  

And those attempts hardly stand alone.  Recall the attempted mass murder of Republicans practicing for the annual Congressional baseball game in 2017.  

Nor is that political violence confined to elected officials.  The 2024 murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson by Luigi Mangione – who also left behind writings condemning the healthcare industry as “parasitic” – illustrates how ideological grievance is increasingly weaponized beyond politics into broader American life.  

Even more disturbingly, Mangione’s crime didn’t produce universal condemnation.  Rather, it actually sparked pockets of sympathy and even financial support, revealing a cultural drift toward rationalizing violence when directed at politically disfavored targets.  

Just as despicably, the murder of Charlie Kirk again revealed an ugly undercurrent in public discourse:  the willingness among the left to excuse or celebrate political violence as long as it aligns with their ideological ends.  

And this is not merely anecdotal.  It is objectively quantifiable.  

Specifically, scientific surveys consistently show that although Americans across the political spectrum reject political violence, a troubling and growing portion of leftists report increasing openness to it.  A recent YouGov survey, as just one example, found that one-quarter of respondents describing themselves as “very liberal” said that political violence can be justified, versus just 4% of “very conservative” respondents.  

Simply put, this isn’t some sort of “both sides” problem.  It’s a metastasizing leftist problem.  

The good news is that Americans overall recognize the trend, with 85% saying that political violence is increasing in the United States, and over 80% agreeing that today’s political rhetoric actively contributes to that rise.  So the broader public recognizes what’s happening, even if charlatans like Barack Obama refuse to acknowledge it plainly.  

Violence is never acceptable from any ideological direction, but when one growing segment – the political left – excuses it as the understandable byproduct of anger, or suggest that certain targets like Charlie Kirk “had it coming,” they’re fueling the problem.  

If political violence becomes normalized, it can escalate, spread and destroy lives and society.  

Which brings us to America’s Founding Fathers, who protected the individual right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights.  

The Second Amendment wasn’t written for tranquil times, but with a sober understanding of the potential ugliness of human nature and political instability.  It reflects the simple reality that remains as relevant today as ever:  Government authorities cannot be everywhere or respond instantaneously.  

Or, as another familiar adage asserts, “When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.”  

At a moment when politicized violence is not only increasing but in some political circles being rationalized and celebrated, that reality becomes increasingly impossible to ignore.  Indeed, the latest attempt on President Trump’s life underscores that even the most heavily protected individuals in America aren’t immune.  

If the Secret Service can’t guarantee absolute protection, what illusion of safety can remain for ordinary citizens?  

The answer is none.  

That requires acknowledging the reality that the modern political left has become increasingly comfortable flirting with, rationalizing and advocating violence in pursuit of its goals.  That also requires rejecting the lazy false equivalence that treats all sides as equally culpable regardless of facts and patterns.  Finally, it requires reaffirming the principle that political disputes must be resolved through intelligent persuasion, not violence.  

Because once that line is crossed, there’s potentially no endpoint.  

If that begins to occur, the preservation of liberty will depend not upon platitudes and idealistic chirpings of people like Barack Obama, but on whether we were willing to recognize the danger in time and retained the means to defend ourselves when it arrived.

Timothy H. Lee is Senior Vice President of legal and public affairs at the Center for Individual Freedom.

Reprinted with permission from cfif.org by Timothy H. Lee.

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AMAC or AMAC Action.