During the 1960s to the 1980s, Italy faced widespread violence from far-left and far-right domestic terrorist groups in an age known as the “Years of Lead.” The United States must brace itself for its own “Years of Lead” — a period of violence caused by ineffective leadership unable to unite the nation and steer it away from this chaos.
Perhaps years from now, someone will prove me wrong on this. In fact, I want someone to call me out as a sensationalist and tell me that I indeed exaggerated and dramatized things without reason. I want this because, unless I and others are wrong, the United States is entering a definitive period of political chaos where armed, abrupt and targeted violence, coupled with heightened political tribalism, will be our new reality.
Over the years, I have dedicated many columns to the things that have led the United States to this point — polarization, apathy, mismanaged foreign policy, lack of representative parties and disillusionment with the political system. Up until recently, the one element keeping the United States from entering this period of chaos was a lack of domestic terrorism — but this is no longer the case.
As defined by political analyst Bruce Hoffman, terrorism is “the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change.” Today, terrorism is a word we associate with bursts of violence, typically enacted by organized extremist groups.
But in this modern age, we especially associate these acts with individuals. Mass shootings, suicide bombings, car attacks and other incidents have dominated domestic terrorism in the media throughout the past few decades. Barring a few examples, these are indicative of individual acts of rage seeking to cause chaos or accomplish a personal vendetta.
However, terrorism had a different connotation in history. Terrorist acts of violence are historically perpetrated to intentionally kill or maim rival political figures. These characterized Russia in the 1900s and 1910s, Turkey during much of the Cold War or Italy during the “Years of Lead,” when the country was torn apart between far-right and far-left militias and brought to the brink of civil war.
We as a nation are sadly inching closer and closer to repeating this history.
In the past nine years, all three U.S. presidential administrations have been defined by a back-and-forth struggle between Republicans and Democrats. This rapid switching of administrations is reminiscent of the United States’ turmoil of the 1970s, which was also defined by economic instability, armed violence and an air of tension plaguing the political atmosphere. In the past 10 years, the American political scene has become especially divided and a lot more fragile, paralleled by armed violence becoming more commonplace.
These pieces almost complete a picture, with one key item missing from it — a fault line or a sociopolitical rift powerful enough to create an “us versus them” struggle that isolates the nation. As I mentioned, incidents of armed violence in the United States in the past decade, by and large, have been defined by individual acts of violence, and there has not been a sustained struggle between political factions like in Italy or Turkey.
But, unlike Italy or Turkey, the United States is at a much higher risk for an environment of chaos due to the wide availability of assault weapons.
As seen in the 2020 insurrection at the capital, one of the first signs of rising political violence in the United States, guns are increasingly being used as “tools of intimidation and violence in increasingly open ways” by extremists, according to an article by Everytown for Gun Safety. When essentially anyone can get their hands on automatic weapons — especially in states with weak gun laws — with enough motivation and organization, there is no probable barrier against the formation of radical militias and rebel formations on a larger scale. Such organizations may arise in the form of cells controlling urban neighborhoods, militias acting as rogue battalions in rural areas or national organizations outright mobilizing disillusioned people to their cause.
Incidents over the last year compel me to notice a deeper pattern of militancy and radicalization. Given the United States’ declining political cooperation and increase in attacks targeting political activists, lawmakers and even presidential candidates, I find it more and more likely that we will experience a period of clashes between extremist groups using targeted acts of violence.
In this era of political chaos, militant organizations would be followed by a series of “tit-for-tat” attacks characteristic of a politically divided nation. This could look something like this: a journalist is shot for criticizing a politician; the politician is shot in response; consequently, a train station is bombed; and then, ultimately, the politician’s party headquarters is bombed and the cycle continues.
This violent path to anarchy must be avoided at all costs, but the United States is not steering itself in another direction. The recent shooting of political activist Charlie Kirk has especially demonstrated this, with experts feeling that political violence in America is becoming uninhibited by laws or social norms and fueled by divisive rhetoric.
If there is any solace to be found here, we must keep in mind that we have not reached a stage of coordinated militancy yet. Countries do not tear themselves apart overnight, but they become divided over years and years of sustained and coordinated political violence. In the United States, there are no open clashes on the streets between groups, and violence has not yet escalated to a mass level.
However, it isn’t sensationalist to point out the obvious: the United States is on a path toward increased political violence, which will cause significant and perhaps irreparable damage to American democracy.
This juncture in time is a precious moment to realize the need for gun control, political reform and welfare reform for all Americans, regardless of their beliefs. Civil means of change must be implemented to ensure safety, avoid further disillusionment among the public and cut off the supply of rage to the radicals who will feed on it to grow.
Failing to address these key issues will lead to continued escalations of violence, and the public will be the victim of armed attacks, politicization of life and erosion of unity. The only way to avoid the impending “Years of Lead” is to build consensus on vital issues and emphasize the primacy of law and order.
Deniz Gulay is a junior double-majoring in history and Russian.
Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.