Podcast Summary: Apple News Today
Episode: What we get wrong about political violence in the U.S.
Date: September 27, 2025
Host: Shumita Basu
Guest: Sean Westwood, Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College and Director of the Polarization Research Lab
Overview
This episode examines the realities behind political violence in America, focusing on what the data actually reveals versus what is often perceived or portrayed in the media. Host Shumita Basu and political scientist Sean Westwood delve into causes and misconceptions about political violence, the role of polarization, the influence of media, and what ordinary citizens and leaders can do to prevent escalation. The conversation uses the recent killing of Charlie Kirk as a springboard to investigate broader trends and public responses.
Key Discussion Points & Insights
Defining Political Violence (02:01–03:03)
- There are competing definitions of political violence in academic and public discourse.
- Maximalist view: Counts any violence that is remotely political, including hate crimes against marginalized groups.
- Narrower view (Westwood's stance): Should be limited to violence clearly motivated by partisan or political views to avoid diluting the seriousness of other forms of violence.
- Quote:
"If you're giving a very broad label, you risk diluting the kind of repulsion that we have towards anti Black violence or anti LGBTQ violence... So there is, I think, a need to be very, very precise here."
— Sean Westwood (02:25)
Is Political Violence Becoming More Common? (03:03–04:30)
- Political violence is still rare, but high-profile incidents create a perception of frequency.
- Recent upticks are notable but are characterized mostly by "lone actors" with little to no coordination.
- No evidence of organized "cells" or systematic campaigns in the US.
- Quote:
"It's so rare when it does happen, it just dominates media coverage. And that can give a false perception of how frequently it's occurring."
— Sean Westwood (03:40)
Who Commits Political Violence, and Why? (04:30–06:17)
- Most perpetrators in recent years act alone and are ideologically incoherent; mental illness is often a factor.
- Motivations are usually unclear, and rarely do attackers leave manifestos or clear explanations.
- Examples: Assassination attempts on Trump, arson attack on Governor Shapiro, attack on Paul Pelosi—all involved "profoundly mentally ill" individuals.
- Quote:
"We're left to kind of piece it together from their social media, their web searches, their parental familial political affiliations..."
— Sean Westwood (04:42)
Ideological Patterns and Tribalism (07:02–08:23)
- Historically, political violence has cycled between left and right (e.g., Weather Underground in the '60s–'70s, Timothy McVeigh in the '90s, and more recent right-associated attacks).
- Modern era violence is less ideologically motivated and more about tribal affiliation or incoherence.
- America is now divided by "team loyalty," not policy.
- Quote:
"The partisan hatred that we feel is not driven by, in most instances, policy disagreement... It really is just this, I'm on my team and my team is good and the other team is bad."
— Sean Westwood (07:47)
What Americans Really Think about Political Violence (08:23–11:48)
- Research from Westwood’s lab: Fewer than 2% of Americans think politically motivated murder is ever acceptable, a figure consistent across party lines.
- Polling questions can inflate the appearance of support for violence via vague wording or broad definitions.
- People wildly overestimate how much the other side approves of violence (up to 33%), which can be dangerous.
- Quote:
"When you do that, support drops from 40, 50, 60% to less than 3%."
— Sean Westwood (10:10)
"If you're worried about political violence, the last thing that you want is to give that lone wolf a false sense of mandate..."
— Sean Westwood (10:51)
U.S. vs. Other Countries—Is America Exceptional? (12:01–13:21)
- American polarization ("hatred for the other side") is among the highest in the world.
- Actual support for political violence is lower than in other democracies.
- These patterns have been stable, offering some hope.
- Quote:
"America is more polarized... But we support violence at a level far below those other nations."
— Sean Westwood (12:28)
Historical Context (13:21–14:35)
- The rhetoric that "America is more divided than ever" is not accurate; historical examples (Civil War, Jim Crow) show periods of far greater violence and division.
- America has proven resilient.
- Quote:
"We are a country that survived the Civil War, the Revolutionary War... We have survived. So I think it's important to keep in mind that as bad as things look now, we've seen far worse."
— Sean Westwood (13:44)
The Role of Media, Social Media, and Political Leaders (14:35–16:41)
- Sensational or inflammatory rhetoric gets attention, but is mostly produced by a small subset of politicians.
- Most congressional representatives do not engage in extreme language or conduct, but their moderation rarely goes viral.
- Media and social media incentivize extreme messages, distorting public perception of what is “normal.”
- Quote:
"Americans have a false perception that Marjorie Taylor Greene is the median representative—she's not."
— Sean Westwood (16:09)
"The media could act as a gatekeeper... In the modern era, you go straight to the public."
— Sean Westwood (16:23)
Free Speech, Blame, and Retaliation (16:41–18:55)
- In the wake of high-profile violence, debates about what speech is acceptable become more heated.
- Both sides engage in blame; responses often become opportunities for political retribution.
- Westwood warns about the risk to civil liberties if this cycle continues.
- Quote:
"I don't know if it's an actual genuine response to the assassination... or just a desire for retribution against political enemies."
— Sean Westwood (17:41)
"...the real tragedy here is that it's being used to gut our civil liberties..."
— Sean Westwood (18:33)
Whose Responses are Constructive? (19:03–21:42)
- Some leaders provided thoughtful, constructive messages: Bernie Sanders, Governor Spencer Cox, and Erica Kirk (victim’s family member) urged restraint and dialogue.
- These voices are drowned out by inflammatory ones, especially on social media.
- Early, loud, provocative reactions often shape the overall public narrative.
- Quotes:
"Bernie Sanders gave an excellent social media address... redoubled the nation's commitment to dialogue..."
— Sean Westwood (19:16)
"If you're talking about a need for calm, that's not going to get you attention."
— Sean Westwood (20:24)
What Can Individuals and Society Do? Solutions & Optimism (23:39–26:54)
- Social media environment makes it hard for rational voices to break through; algorithms promote inflammatory content.
- Individuals may need to "step back" from social media ("touch grass") to avoid skewed perceptions.
- Journalists and academics should hold themselves to higher standards and avoid amplifying bad data or misleading statistics.
- Fixing misperceptions about political violence is possible but challenging; corrections tend to fade quickly from public opinion.
- Quote:
"All I can say is that it is a problem. There are ways that we can address it, but it's going to take a while."
— Sean Westwood (24:56) - The “most powerful tool” Americans have is their vote; choose candidates and media that lower the temperature and refuse to incentivize divisive rhetoric.
- Despite pessimism, Westwood remains “bullish” on American democracy.
- Quote:
"Maintain involvement in the political system. Maintain hope for this country. It is not too late. We have not crossed the Rubicon."
— Sean Westwood (26:46)
Notable Quotes & Timestamps
-
On media narrative and reality:
"Social media isn't reality. Blue sky doesn't reflect the Democratic Party truth, Social doesn't reflect the Republican Party, and X doesn't really reflect anyone."
— Sean Westwood (01:24) -
On the misunderstanding about prevalence of violence:
"When it does happen, it just dominates media coverage. And that can give a false perception..."
— Sean Westwood (03:40) -
On the dangers of misperception:
"If you're worried about political violence, the last thing that you want is to give that lone wolf a false sense of mandate."
— Sean Westwood (10:51) -
On the endurance of American democracy:
"We have survived. So I think it's important to keep in mind that as bad as things look now, we've seen far worse."
— Sean Westwood (13:44) -
On voting as a means to reduce division:
"Vote for the candidate that will lower the temperature. Vote for the candidate that that is going to better our democratic system."
— Sean Westwood (25:23) -
On hope for the future:
"I'm still optimistic about American democracy. I'm still bullish on a healthy American Congress."
— Sean Westwood (26:38)
Important Timestamps
- Defining political violence: 02:01–03:03
- Incidence vs. Perception of political violence: 03:03–04:30
- Who commits political violence: 04:30–06:17
- Historical patterns: 07:02–08:23
- Polling and misperceptions: 08:23–11:48
- American exceptionalism: 12:01–13:21
- Historical resilience: 13:21–14:35
- Role of social media: 14:35–16:41
- Free speech & retaliation: 16:41–18:55
- Constructive leadership responses: 19:03–21:42
- How first responders set narrative: 21:42–23:39
- What to do (practical solutions): 23:39–26:54
Episode Tone
The conversation is clear-eyed, data-driven, and nuanced—eschewing alarmism for sober analysis and cautious optimism. Westwood addresses misunderstandings compassionately but presses for accuracy and responsibility from media, civic leaders, and citizens alike. The tone balances concern over divisions with reminders of democratic resilience and the power of collective action.
For more on Sean Westwood’s research, visit the Polarization Research Lab and Apple News show notes.