The United States seems to be experiencing a volatile period where its core values and institutions have come under threat, accompanied by what many observers identify as a rise in uncivil speech and behavior. Yet, much of this contentious rhetoric and behavior seemingly goes beyond instances of incivility and into something more serious, including threats, intimidation, physical assaults, insurrectionary riots, and assassination. This raises two important questions: is the concept of incivility adequate for describing and analyzing such speech and behavior in contemporary politics, and how should threats and violent actions be understood within a broader civility framework? In this article, I argue that many of the illiberal pathologies afflicting contemporary democracies—including political violence—fall outside the scope of incivility. Drawing on recent work in normative political theory, I unpack the concept of civility and examine how violent speech and actions fit within its various dimensions. I then introduce the concept of “bellicose politics” and provide examples from the United States in which contentious rhetoric and behavior exceed the bounds of incivility. I conclude by considering how this concept may improve the way we analyze and respond to violent rhetoric and actions in political life.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Steven T. Zech (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: