Keep up with everything happening in The Commons by signing up for our Philanthropy Today newsletter and joining our Commons LinkedIn group.
Over the weekend, the nation watched as former President Donald Trump was shot while giving a speech at a rally in Pennsylvania. One man in the crowd was killed, two people were critically injured, and all those in attendance experienced a level of fear that no one should ever have to face.
Our country is still reeling from that horrific act of violence. But this was far from a one-off event. Political violence in the United States has reached its highest level since 1970. This alarming trend includes recent high-profile incidents such as the assault on California Representative Nancy Pelosi’s husband Paul in his own home, the attempted kidnapping of Michigan’s Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer, the shooting of Republican Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana at a Congressional baseball practice, and the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Data from longitudinal surveys conducted three times between 2019 and 2022 by the Democracy Fund, which I lead, show that the American public overwhelmingly opposes political violence: 88 percent of Democrats and 79 percent of Republicans consistently say violence is never justified to advance political goals. Despite today’s ramped up rhetoric, these findings have remained steady, with just 2 to 4 percent of people across the surveys saying that the use of political violence is justified.
The problem comes when political leaders and media figures make light of or justify violence, providing their supporters with permission or even encouragement to act. For example, many of the same Republican survey respondents who rejected political violence in our research also described the acts of January 6, 2021, as “patriotic.”
Importantly, violent rhetoric doesn’t just put politicians at risk. It also harms those who are trying to bolster our democratic systems — namely the nonprofit and civic leaders working to protect civil rights and ensure voting is free, fair, and representative.
Movement organizations and leaders have long faced political violence, including physical and legal threats, and more recently, digital ones. While these are most commonly associated with resistance to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, today’s pro-democracy advocates are also contending with growing safety concerns. For example, the Democracy Fund recently provided support for physical security services and safety analysis for grantees that have received threats because of their voting-rights work.
Philanthropy can do much more to support such groups, starting with listening to what they need. Grantees facing threats may be reluctant to share that information out of fear that they’ll be deemed too risky and expensive to fund or that those threats might extend to the grant makers themselves. To allay such fears, funders should take steps to encourage openness and honesty, including initiating conversations about potential and emerging safety issues.
Differing Security Needs
Grant makers should also be sensitive to nonprofits’ varying needs and comfort levels with different types of safety and security services. Some groups may be wary of connecting to law enforcement; others may want to focus on cyber security and legal protection rather than physical security. Many may prefer trusted safety and security service providers in their communities rather than one-size-fits all options.
Among the best models for effective philanthropic support in this area is the Trusted Elections Fund, or TEF, a nonpartisan pooled donor fund that invests in state-based networks to prepare for the dual threats of election sabotage and political violence. TEF has identified violence protection and prevention nonprofits facing major funding shortfalls.
They include groups such as Over Zero and Common Ground USA, which have both mobilized since this past weekend to equip national and community leaders with resources to help diffuse tensions and mitigate the threat of further violence. They’ve distributed toolkits for building community resilience during election cycles and provided guidelines for actions to take after an act of violence.
TEF also supports a range of organizations that offer physical security, cyber-security, and related supports to the nonprofit field. This includes funding nonprofits that both prevent and respond to emerging threats, such as the Digital Defense Fund and Bridging Divides Initiative, which tracks and seeks to mitigate political violence in the United States and serves as a hub for resources and research.
The events of this past weekend were shocking, but unfortunately not surprising. For the past several years, experts and nonprofit leaders have expressed alarm about the warning signs of political violence. At Democracy Fund, we call these types of threats “gray rhinos” — threats we don’t adequately prepare for even as they charge towards us. Philanthropy cannot continue to ignore the danger signs all around us. Grant makers have an obligation to ensure that grantees are safe and secure and that the communities they serve are protected from violence.
To preserve the nation’s democracy, this support can’t only happen during election cycles — it must continue for the long term regardless of who wins the White House, Congress, and local elections in November. Political violence is not just a problem of the moment, but a problem of the era.
(The Commons is financed in part with philanthropic support from the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, Einhorn Collaborative, and JPB Foundation. None of our supporters have any control over or input into story selection, reporting, or editing, and they do not review articles before publication. See more about the Chronicle, the grants, how our foundation-supported journalism works, and our gift-acceptance policy.)
