In recent years, threats against elected officials have become more common across the U.S. A recent report from the Brennan Center for Justice, a think tank affiliated with the New York University School of Law, found that 43% of state legislators have experienced threats. Thirty-eight percent reported that the amount of abuse they experience has increased since first taking public office, while only 16% said it has decreased.
Wyoming is no exception. In August, Republican Secretary of State Chuck Gray received a threatening voicemail, and Rep. Karlee Provenza (D-Laramie) has faced multiple death threats since joining the House in 2020.
Ryan Williamson, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Wyoming, said threats have gone up in recent years because of the growing political division and polarization in America.
“We have seen the country become more comfortable with the idea of political violence. People have such negative attitudes towards the other side,” he said. ”They do see a lot of things about government, politics and elections as life and death. When you engage in that mentality, it's a lot easier to justify violence."
Extreme rhetoric about political opponents has long been a feature of American politics and traces its origins to America’s founding. During George Washington’s presidency, his critics accused him of violating Republican principles and promoting corruption similar to England’s monarchy. Some detractors even labeled Washington a traitor. Vice President John Adams was labeled a monarchist for advocating for titles in the Senate.
But as extreme rhetoric has become more common, it has consequences for public faith and approval of democracy. According to Williamson, democracy relies on the ability of citizens to engage with different perspectives. Yet as political polarization deepens, it becomes harder for politicians to operate across party lines.
"What we've seen in recent years with all this highly charged rhetoric is that people don't think democracy is the best form of government at the same level that they used to,” Williamson said. “People are increasingly of the belief that the other side is so bad that perhaps democracy isn’t great because they don't want to risk the other side winning any sort of influence."
Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson argue in their book “Democracy and Disagreement” that moral disagreement is a natural feature of democracy, but it can only be managed through robust deliberation. They advocate for "deliberative democracy," a model that emphasizes the need for reasoned debate among citizens and leaders to find shared principles, even amidst moral and ideological divides. They argue that deliberation not only legitimizes decisions but fosters mutual understanding and respect among participants. It encourages citizens to consider perspectives beyond their own, strengthening the moral foundation of democratic governance. Without this, the political landscape risks devolving into a contest of power rather than a forum for principled debate.
According to Williamson, public deliberation is threatened.
“ The death of deliberation makes for a less efficient and less effective democracy,” he said. “And, also, people tune out when there's no real competition of ideas. They don't feel like their vote really matters, and therefore they don't feel compelled to participate.
Dealing with these issues can be difficult. Williamson emphasized the important role that everyday citizens can play.
“ I think it's everyone's job -- producers of information, consumers of information, people who rely on that information, like politicians. You want to make sure that you're dealing in facts and not perpetuating any misconceptions about what reality might be,” he said.
While threats against politicians are on the rise, Williamson said it’s important to note that polls have found the majority of Americans still oppose political violence.