Search for a command to run...

Timestamps are as accurate as they can be but may be slightly off. We encourage you to listen to the full context.
Derek Thompson hosts an in-depth conversation with Adrian LaFrance, Executive Editor of The Atlantic, about the alarming rise of political violence in America following Charlie Kirk's assassination. LaFrance, who has extensively studied patterns of political violence throughout American history, discusses how seemingly random acts of violence may actually represent a dangerous cycle that has repeated in America's past. (08:24) The discussion explores the concept of "salad bar extremism" where modern political assassins don't fit neatly into traditional ideological categories, drawing parallels to the anarchist violence of the early 1900s that culminated in the Palmer raids. The conversation examines how social media amplifies violent rhetoric, the role of social isolation in radicalizing individuals, and ultimately asks whether Americans can choose restraint over revenge to break this destructive cycle.
Derek Thompson is a staff writer at The Atlantic and host of the Plain English podcast. He has written extensively about economics, technology, and social trends, including acclaimed pieces on social isolation and the changing nature of American society.
Adrian LaFrance is the Executive Editor of The Atlantic and an expert on political violence in America. She has written multiple cover stories for the magazine on extremism and political violence, including "The New Anarchy" which examines historical patterns of violence in American society. Her work has established her as a leading voice on understanding and preventing political violence.
LaFrance reveals that America has experienced cycles of political violence before, particularly in the early 1900s when anarchist bombings culminated in the Palmer raids. (27:57) The pattern shows violence simmering for years before exploding in coordinated attacks - in 1919-1920, dozens were killed in anarchist bombings. Understanding these historical precedents helps us recognize that current violence isn't unprecedented, but it also suggests we may be further along in a dangerous cycle than many realize. This historical perspective is crucial for anyone trying to understand whether current events represent isolated incidents or part of a larger, more concerning trend.
Modern political assassins don't fit neat ideological boxes, exhibiting what the FBI calls "salad bar extremism" - grabbing beliefs from various sources rather than following coherent political philosophies. (15:44) Recent examples include attackers with contradictory political views: pro-Palestinian radicals who support Trump, alt-center self-help readers turned killers, and nihilistic gamers from conservative families. This makes violence harder to predict and prevent because traditional ideological profiling fails. For professionals, this highlights the danger of oversimplifying complex social problems and the need for more nuanced analysis when assessing threats or risks in any field.
Research shows that socially isolated men are most likely to exhibit what political scientist Michael Bang Peterson calls "need for chaos" - viewing politics as dark entertainment where they want to watch the world burn. (23:09) This connects social isolation directly to political violence, suggesting that addressing loneliness and providing meaningful social connections could be a key prevention strategy. For ambitious professionals, this underscores the importance of building genuine community and connection, not just professional networks, as both a personal safeguard and a civic responsibility.
Historical analysis shows that periods of political violence inevitably lead to government crackdowns that restrict constitutional freedoms for everyone, as seen in the Palmer raids following anarchist bombings. (35:35) LaFrance warns we're seeing similar patterns today with calls for broad investigations and restrictions following recent attacks. The lesson is that political violence doesn't just harm direct victims - it creates a climate where authorities feel justified in curtailing freedoms that protect all citizens. This makes preventing violence a matter of self-interest for anyone who values their own liberty and democratic participation.
Despite the grim historical patterns, LaFrance argues that individual choices toward restraint and peaceful disagreement can help break cycles of violence before they escalate further. (45:37) She suggests people could become "single-issue voters" focused on electing leaders who categorically reject political violence. The key insight is that while violence seems systemic, it actually depends on individual choices that aggregate into social norms. For professionals and leaders, this means every choice about how to engage in political discourse - especially online - contributes to either escalating or de-escalating societal tensions.