On June 14, 2025, the lives of Melissa Hortman who was a House speaker in Minnesota and her husband Mark were taken in what authorities believe to be a politically motivated act of violence. The same day Senator John Hoffman and his wife were also shot and injured.
This act of violence raised concerns about political violence in the United States. In democratic politics, violence not only matters when it changes who holds power but also when it forces institutions to acknowledge loss.
After this moment, members of the congress held a speech to raise awareness around this type of violence. This was not the only time that the Congress did a minute of silence. However, they matter more than we think politically and humanly speaking. My argument is that minutes of silence in Congress are not only a way to express mourning, but are rituals that show how fragile political order can become when violence shapes public life and fear.
Democracy is often defined through elections, institutions and law. But it is also important to emphasize norms and unwritten rules and how some political actors behave. These include, reflecting violence in general, respecting others and accepting that some conflicts should be resolved in these institutions and not by force. The killing of public figures or innocent individuals pushed democratic institutions to answer in a symbolic way rather than a political one.
In the case of the Hortman’s, members of Congress used the floor not to pass legislation immediately, but to acknowledge loss and condemn violence. This reflects an important feature of modern democracies institutions. As they rely on unity, even though this does not mean that these lawmakers agree politically.
However, these symbolic moments can also show a separation of the parties when it comes to resolutions about violence. Their goal could differ when it comes to approving policies that could influence the rate of violence. We can see types of division when it comes to solutions and what causes them. There have been countless debates around gun rights in the United States. While some argue that there should be stricter laws against it, others argue that it could threaten individual rights.
But how can we prevent future violence if these moments remain performative? These gestures don’t replace solutions related to public safety. However, dismissing them entirely would also remove their democratic function. They matter because they show shared values when it comes to human life even though at the end everyone can have a different opinion on certain matters like I stated earlier.
This event can be understood through democratic erosion. It does not always mean that elections and institutions lose their power. But that norms and trust are becoming increasingly weakened. Shared expectations about political behaviour are also at their highest.
Polarization is also a key factor in this type of environment. Where violence is more likely to happen.In highly polarized systems ideologies diverge from one another, creating a hostile environment where an opponent could be seen as dangerous.
Institutional resilience is also an important concept. That shows how democracies can experience instability and shocks but still remain stable. The house response to his violent actions shows that American institutions are still trying to enforce norms. However, repeated reliance on symbolic responses can also signal that deeper political divisions remain unresolved.
Earlier in May, I was present in the house of the representative chamber during a voting session where different bills were passed. At the end of this session the Democratic Party held a minute of silence followed by a speech.
The democratic party requisitioned this moment in order to honor a life that was taken by an act of violence because of religious choices. What struck out the most was the different level of importance that this moment had on the different parties. Showing that political division always remains.
What stood out to me was not only the silence itself, but also the contrast between routine legislative work and sudden emotional interruption. The idea of democratic norms became more concrete. These are not only theories discussed in political science but are practiced through recognition.
What is important to keep in mind in cases like this, is that through violent acts, symbolism can matter. Democracy is not always defined by legislation but also shaped by how as a society those who have power use it to act when violence enters the lives of citizens. Speeches but also moments of silence are important to show to the public that everyone cares and that violence has no right place.
However, there are still some concerns about the efficiency of these moments that are sometimes seen as only performative. As discussed earlier, this does not mean that everyone aligns politically when it comes to finding solutions. The gap between symbolism and policy is where there is still tension that needs to be solved.
I think your argument clearly shows that the moments of silence that the congress hold mean more than mourning. Rather, the silence is a shared promise that political disagreement must not lead to violence. I especially like your observation that democracy isn’t always determined by policies and legislation. I also think symbolism such as speeches plays a big part in democracy, as public who usually gets information about such political issues via media could engage in the topic more easily through those factors.
At the same time, your post raises an important question about the limits of such symbolic institutional responses. While it is true that symbolic responses have an important role in moving the people, it should be conducted alongside actual and practical action. If the Congress repeatedly tries to unite parties only through silences and ceremonies, it wouldn’t really change anything on the practical level. Policymakers and government officials should come up with actual changes in legislation and security measures that would actually reduce the likelihood of future violence if they are to make their symbolic responses truly meaningful.
I think it is worth thinking about how we can raise efficiency of such moments. Lawmakers could use symbolic responses to propose specific solutions or policy changes following right after the moment, which would make the moment more meaningful and able to take advantage of the public’s attention. Such moments can also influence citizens and representatives by reminding them that political disagreement should never justify violence.
I thought your point about the difference between symbolic actions and actual political responses was really interesting. A moment of silence may seem like a small action, but I agree that it can still have meaning for democracy because it shows that political violence should not be accepted, even when politicians strongly disagree with each other.
Your discussion also made me think about political polarization. When polarization becomes too strong, people may start to see the other political side not just as an opponent, but as a threat. I think this can be especially dangerous for democracy because democracy depends on people accepting political disagreement without turning to violence. In that sense, a moment of silence can show that there are still some basic democratic values that politicians share across party lines.
At the same time, I think there is a limit to what these symbolic actions can accomplish. If politicians come together after an act of violence but continue using rhetoric that increases hostility afterward, the moment of unity may not have much long-term effect. Because of this, I think moments of silence can show democratic resilience, but they can also show how fragile democratic norms have become. What matters is whether the respect shown during these moments continues after the moment itself.
I found your observation that the two parties regarded the moment of silence as being important to them to different degrees interesting. While reading this part, I was prompted to consider whether a democratic ritual can actually produce a shared norm, even when political actors do not share the same meaning.
The moment of silence may appear to show political unity, as everyone becomes one because the members participate in the same ceremony. However, participating in the same ritual does not mean that they share the same opinions and values about what the ritual signifies. I think it is especially important that you personally observed this scene in parliament. This is because, unlike merely seeing it through media reports, it can show without distortion how this political ritual is perceived in the actual setting. This shows that democratic norms can be influenced not merely by the institutional execution of a particular ritual, but also by how political actors interpret and engage with that ritual.
This perspective also prompts us to reflect on democratic resilience. Despite deep political divisions, the fact that lawmakers can participate together in a single ceremony can still show that a certain democratic boundary still exists. However, if the same event is interpreted from completely different political perspectives, such a ritual may have limitations in creating a shared foundation in the long term.
Having said that, to extend the research, I want to ask this question. If political actors think differently not only about the policy itself but also about the meaning and importance of the ritual, can this symbolic, superficial ritual of democracy really strengthen a shared democratic norm?
In the wake of ‘political violence’ that has been happening in the US recently, I think that this kind of political performance functions as a kind of Maginot Line. No matter how many moments of silence are took for politicians or podcasters who lost their lives, political assassinations will always happen. I think it’s the discourse that surrounds these actions that matters the most, and ultimately these performative actions matter in this aspect. Naming something as bad, or morally unjust, is sometimes the small piece of action needed in tumultuous times. From what I can see, at least in the times when Melissa Hortman was assassinated, there was a slow justification between people that if a Republican-leaning person was killed, Democrat-leaning people were all heartless devils, and vice versa. This was very much adding onto the pre-existing political polarization, and riling up the stage for even worse things to happen, and then be shrugged off. I believe this act of political silence, even if it seems performative and useless, sets a clear boundary for what is acceptable and unacceptable in society. Of course, this may seem like the UN saying they won’t tolerate any further violence when there is a genocide happening in Gaza. However, I think this comes from the very clear limits that a council has in a democracy, and that it has brought some good to democracies. It is very much up to the people of a society to accept something or not, and I think political assassinations is one of them.