(The Hill) — The arson attack at Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s (D) residence is the latest incident to underscore the threats faced by high-profile politicians amid the country’s political polarization. 

The man accused of setting fire to the governor’s residence over the weekend allegedly harbored hatred against Shapiro, admitting that he planned to attack the Democratic governor with a hammer if he had seen him at his home. 

The attack comes after assassination attempts against President Donald Trump last year put a spotlight on political violence and the risks faced by figures on both sides of the aisle.  

“This is a continuation of the era of violent populism … that has characterized American politics for years now,” said Robert Pape, director of the University of Chicago’s Project on Security and Threats.  

“What you are seeing is a continuing historic high of political violence in our country across multiple dimensions, and it’s coming from both the right and the left, and it is targeting people on both the right and the left.”  

The blaze at the governor’s residence early Sunday morning caused “a significant amount” of damage, though Shapiro and his family were evacuated and uninjured, according to a statement from the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP). 

The suspect, identified as Cody Balmer of Harrisburg, allegedly broke into the residence through a window and launched multiple Molotov cocktails to ignite “substantial fire,” according to records from the Dauphin County District Attorney’s Office.  

In an interview with troopers, he said he would have “beaten [Shapiro] with his hammer” if there had been an encounter in the residence, as alleged in an affidavit from state police. Balmer has been charged with attempted murder, aggravated arson, terrorism, burglary and other offenses. 

Asked about the incident on Monday, Trump said, “The attacker was not a fan of Trump, I understand, just from what I read and from what I’ve been told. The attacker basically wasn’t a fan of anybody. He’s probably just a whack job, and certainly a thing like that cannot be allowed to happen.”   

Trump himself was the target of political violence as he campaigned for the White House last year. At a July rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, Trump’s ear was grazed by a bullet in an attempted assassination. Weeks later, he faced another apparent attempt at his Florida golf club. 

The high-profile incidents stoked fears of more violence around the 2024 election, but the risks have long loomed over candidates and officials. 

Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) husband was attacked by an assailant with a hammer looking for the ex-speaker in 2022. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) was the target of a kidnapping plot in 2020. That same year, election workers faced threats over their participation in election procedures as some falsely claimed that the election was stolen, and the next year, rioters breached the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 as lawmakers met to certify the election results.

All of these incidents have been part of the “heightened levels of violence” of at least the past five years, said Katherine Keneally, the director of threat analysis and prevention at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue in the United States.

Keneally said the political divisions facing the country have played a role in the uptick in violence but aren’t the only cause. She noted the reports that Balmer may be facing mental health issues and possible financial problems.

“The division that we are currently seeing is playing a role as one of the reasons why we’re seeing officials be a primary target, but it doesn’t tell the whole story,” she said.

But she also pointed to the spread of misinformation and disinformation on social media as contributing to increased violence, arguing that reducing the spread would help “bring down the temperature” and lessen the number of people influenced to act violently.

Balmer reportedly made numerous social media posts, including memes that hinted at violence. The posts criticized both former President Joe Biden and Trump.

Some of the most prominent social media platforms have moved away from moderating content more recently, with X largely ending content moderation as Elon Musk took it over and Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, ending its fact-checking program this month.

“There is very limited, arguably no moderation, when it comes to the spread of false and misleading content online, and we are saying that this content is influencing people to engage in violence,” Keneally said.

Lilliana Mason, a political science professor at Johns Hopkins with a focus on partisan identity and American social polarization, noted that actual violent incidents are “pretty rare still.”

But threats against elected officials have been on the uptick, particularly against women and racial minorities, which can leave people “effectively intimidated out of their offices,” Mason said.

“It’s undeniable that it creates a chilling effect,” said Arie Perliger, a professor in the School of Criminology and Justice Studies at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. “People will reconsider if they want to engage in any kind of political activities, whether it’s on the school board all the way up to the much more prestigious positions within the political system. It’s also pushed a lot of politicians outside of the political arena, because they are not willing to deal with these kinds of costs.”

And while Shapiro and other upper-level politicians likely have more resources and security to mitigate threats, local leaders don’t typically have access to the same protection, Perliger said.

“They don’t have, in many cases, the ability to address those kinds of threats. And I think that’s what happens, is that less and less people will be willing to engage in local politics,” Perliger said. 

Shannon Hiller, the executive director of the Bridging Divides Initiative at Princeton University, said her organization, which conducts research to find policies and actions that can push back against political violence, points to “normalization” of threats and violence as key to the continuation and expansion of these types of incidents.

She said this plays out in multiple ways, like when leaders haven’t been willing to wholeheartedly condemn political violence and when the current “climate of hostility” feels normal and that violence is “happening everywhere.”

Hiller said statements after the fact of an incident are important, but fighting normalization consistently is necessary to stop it.

“The combination of normalizing the use of violence against people you disagree with or don’t look like you and then dehumanizing them in the way you talk about that group or those people, that’s a really concerning dynamic,” she said.

There’s also the possibility of an additional element in Shapiro’s case, Pape noted, in “the overlap of political violence and antisemitism.”  

Shapiro had posted about celebrating Passover with his family the evening before the attack, but details about the exact motive in the incident are unclear, and officials have not made a connection to Shapiro’s religion. 

As more details emerge, experts said they’ll be watching for responses from top political figures on both sides of the aisle. 

“I think we need to have more courageous politicians who are willing to go out against their own camp, their own political camp, and say those kinds of things are unacceptable. We understand your frustration, we understand your anger … but we have a system, and we have rules,” Perliger said. 

Hiller said her initiative tries to note positive examples of local and state leaders lowering the temperature while increasing civic engagement and those leaders can be examples for others to follow.

“If you look around you and look for it, there’s a number of leaders who are, and I mean leaders in the most broad sense, who are providing good examples,” she said. “And so that’s kind of the level I think we can all start with.”