Luigi Mangione, Political Violence, and The Illusion of Progress
Having been born in Honduras, I’ve seen firsthand the effects of political violence—a grim reality familiar to many across Latin America. Political violence often functions as a tool for power, used by politicians and parties to suppress dissent and consolidate control. “One hand washes the other,” as the saying goes: the politicians empower the rioters, and the rioters support the politicians.
But political violence is not always spontaneous. There are instances when unrest erupts out of sheer frustration with leadership, triggered by significant or seemingly trivial events. A prime example is the Rodney King Riots in 1992—six days of civil unrest fueled by public outrage over police brutality. However, not all instances of political violence arise organically.
On December 4, 2024, in Midtown Manhattan, the nature of political violence took a chilling turn.
The Catalyst: The Murder of Brian Thompson
In the early hours of that day, Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was shot and killed outside the New York Hilton Midtown Hotel. Thompson, a controversial figure, had become a lightning rod for public anger due to UnitedHealthcare’s perceived exploitation of patients and sky-high premiums. His policies, which were widely criticized for prioritizing profit over patient care, made him a symbol of corporate greed in the American healthcare system.
The accused, 26-year-old Luigi Mangione, was no ordinary suspect. A University of Pennsylvania graduate with a degree in economics, Mangione’s profile defied expectations. He came from a middle-class family in New Jersey and had excelled academically. Yet, Mangione’s later writings, found in his apartment, revealed a deep disillusionment with the U.S. healthcare system and the broader economic inequalities he believed it represented. His online posts spoke of “economic violence” inflicted on ordinary Americans and labeled corporate executives like Thompson as “tyrants.”
Mangione’s act of violence was not an isolated incident of personal grievance but a reflection of a larger, growing sentiment of frustration and anger. To many who felt crushed by systemic inequities, his act symbolized a form of retribution, however morally repugnant. The public’s response was startling. What would have been universally condemned a decade ago was met with a mix of cheers, sympathy, and outrage. On social media, hashtags such as #JusticeForMangione and #CorporateAccountability trended, illustrating a troubling shift in societal attitudes toward violence as a political statement.
This reaction demonstrates how polarization and systemic failures can transform acts of individual violence into symbolic gestures that resonate with larger political movements. Mangione’s crime was not merely personal; it was politicized, amplified by ideological divisions, and framed as a radical but inevitable response to perceived injustices.
The Rise of Polarization
The growing use of political violence cannot be separated from the deepening polarization within our society. The divisions between the professional-managerial class and other groups have intensified, often manifesting in ideological clashes. These groups, representing diverging interests and priorities, are locked in an escalating conflict.
Class tensions exacerbate this divide. While issues like feminism, migration, and LGBTQ rights dominate headlines, they are often symptoms of a broader problem: systemic inequality. The professional-managerial class, serving entrenched economic interests, benefits from a system that marginalizes others. This deepens societal rifts and drives people to ideological extremes.
Both sides of the political spectrum bear responsibility for this polarization. On the Left, groups like Antifa engage in activities that are tacitly condoned by some leaders, eroding public trust in institutions. On the Right, inflammatory rhetoric and the rise of extremist factions contribute to the cycle of hostility. Acknowledging the culpability of both sides is essential for an honest conversation about the roots of political violence.
Historical Lessons
The people who inflict violence and get away with it, they usually win and then they start inflicting this political violence on not just their opponents but ultimately on the entire people. Why? Because they need the violence to stay in power and staying in power becomes an end of itself and therefore the use of violence becomes an end of itself. They need to keep on using the violence, more and more repression, and abuse to stay in power. This story is not new, it is a tale as old as time and the United States is not an exception to this.
History is replete with examples of leaders who weaponized political violence for short-term gain, leaving behind legacies of destruction and trauma. Adolf Hitler’s rise in Nazi Germany serves as a stark example. In 1934, during the Night of the Long Knives, Hitler ordered the purge of the Sturmabteilung (SA) leadership, a paramilitary group that had helped him gain power but was perceived as a threat to his regime. This violent consolidation of power eliminated rivals and secured the loyalty of the military, but it also entrenched a culture of fear and repression that defined the Nazi regime. Similarly, his use of the Gestapo to silence dissent further illustrates how political violence suppresses opposition at the cost of long-term stability.
The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia relied heavily on violence to overthrow the Provisional Government. Following their seizure of power in 1917, the Bolsheviks, under Lenin and later Stalin, initiated the Red Terror. This campaign targeted perceived enemies of the revolution, including political opponents and members of the bourgeoisie. Stalin’s Great Purge in the 1930s further amplified this violence, leading to the execution and imprisonment of millions. These actions secured short-term control but created a legacy of fear and societal fragmentation that haunted Russia for decades.
These examples illustrate a critical lesson: political violence, while seemingly effective in the short term, fosters resentment, fear, and instability. It is a tool that prioritizes coercion over consensus, making its gains unsustainable.
Grievances vs. Violence
Americans have legitimate grievances about the healthcare system, economic inequality, and systemic failures. Sky-high costs, denied claims, and deaths from medical negligence fuel anger and hopelessness. However, resorting to political violence undermines the very foundation of democracy.
Violence silences opposition and instills fear, bypassing the democratic process of debate and mutual understanding. While it may yield immediate results, these changes lack the durability of reforms achieved through consensus and dialogue. A society that normalizes violence sacrifices its ability to resolve conflicts peacefully, trading stability for temporary power.
A New Era of Violence in the United States
In the United States, political violence is a relatively new phenomenon compared to other parts of the world. Yet, its trajectory is all too familiar. It begins with the illusion of progress but ultimately suppresses opposition through fear.
The murder of Brian Thompson and the subsequent public reaction marks a turning point. Mangione’s actions, whether seen as a desperate protest or a reprehensible crime, underline the dangerous potential of systemic failures to fuel political violence. When grievances are ignored or dismissed, they fester and manifest in ways that threaten the foundations of a democratic society.
We must ask ourselves: Is this the society we want? A society where fear, not reason, dictates change?
Political violence is not a shortcut to meaningful progress; it is a dangerous detour that erodes the foundations of democracy. History teaches us that societies built on fear and repression are inherently unstable, fostering division and ultimately leading to ruin.
A Path Forward
To combat the rise of political violence, we must address the underlying causes of polarization. This includes tackling economic inequality, rebuilding trust in institutions, and fostering civic education that emphasizes dialogue and mutual respect. Politicians, community leaders, and everyday citizens must prioritize consensus over conflict and dialogue over division.
We must also resist the temptation to justify violence, regardless of its source. Condemning violence consistently and unequivocally sends a clear message: no grievance, however legitimate, justifies the erosion of democratic principles.
The future of our society depends on our ability to recognize political violence for what it is: a dangerous illusion of progress. By learning from history and committing to peaceful resolution, we can build a more just and stable society for all.
AUTHOR
Antonio Ancaya
©2025 Long Run News. All rights reserved.
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!