The Boomerang Effect in Assassination Risks

leremy/AdobeStock

PSYCHIATRIC VIEWS ON THE DAILY NEWS

“Every now and then the country

Goes a little wrong

Every now and then a madman’s

Bound to come along”

song excerpt from “Assassins”

Today is Constitution Day, Citizenship Day and the beginning of Constitution Week.

As our country has come to know, only 2 days ago, there was a possible plan for another attempted assassination of Past President Trump, as a lone gunman, Ryan Routh, was found hiding on his golf course. As if 1 attempt is not enough for major concern, 2 of them suggests an ongoing deeper concern for his life and perhaps others.

How do we potentially understand some of the psychological reasons involved? I look to 2 sources for insight. One is the theatre. The arts often have unique and early perspectives on societal problems. The other is psychology.

For theatre and the arts, Stephen Sondheim’s 1990 play “Assassins” was a daring approach to the topic. This musical play is a collective biography of the historical figures who attempted to assassinate presidents of the United States. It has been recounted multiple times. The 9 characters in the play seem to have very different motives, though hubris and an attempt at fame seem to tie them together, as well as the method of firearm ready availability.

Violence on various levels, from speech to mass shootings, has seemed to escalate in the United States. Psychiatrist Bandy Lee and colleagues have continually tried to warn us all about potential political violence and risk.¹

In the current presidential race, one possible explanation for the apparent increased risk toward past President Trump is what is known as the Boomerang Effect. That happens when an individual’s attempt to persuade someone else has the opposite effect, coming back to haunt the messenger, like a boomerang thrown correctly comes back toward the thrower.

The psychological factors that can contribute to the Boomerang Effect include cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias, causing one to embrace their viewpoints even more strongly. We know this in clinical practice if we too quickly interpret a patient’s problem before they are ready to reconsider it. That can even lead the patient to drop out of treatment.

Political martyrs can use this process in a paradoxical way. With sacrificing themselves, they can hope to reduce their perceived concerns for others or a cause.

Therefore, in terms of violence, if a leader blames others erroneously for violence, say in terms of immigrants, it may backfire and lead to a boomerang of violence toward that leader. Perhaps the most direct statement that can illustrate that was from Donald Trump in 2016 during his first run for president.

“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any votes, OK? It’s, like, incredible.”

The media reminds us of this statement now and then.

History shows a common thread of real and mythical violence in our country’s founding and development. That leaves us with triggers to past traumas. As the song from “Assassins” goes, politically speaking, the 1968 election was one of the peaks of our internal conflicts. We have entered another.

For one’s own good then, scapegoating others with violent rhetoric can increase the chances that they will become more at risk for violence directed back toward them. Even if one person or one side is more responsible for heating up the violence potential, now is the time for us all to damper such threatening rhetoric—including internal threats, lies, and extreme hyperbole—that elicits a fight or flight response. When humiliation is involved, the risk of an even more dangerous return response intensifies. If we cannot do more than the usual lip service to do better, political violence will likely become more normalized.

As a story by Tanya Lukyanova released in The Free Press today asked: “Why Did Journalists Like Me Take Ryan Routh Seriously?”² As the war in Ukraine escalated over a year ago, and he escalated his concern, journalists ignored his criminal history and odd behavior. Psychiatry has the knowledge to help analyze such individuals and risks if we become more involved with these undue societal conflicts.

Dr Moffic is an award-winning psychiatrist who specialized in the cultural and ethical aspects of psychiatry and is now in retirement and retirement as a private pro bono community psychiatrist. A prolific writer and speaker, he has done a weekday column titled “Psychiatric Views on the Daily News” and a weekly video, “Psychiatry & Society,” since the COVID-19 pandemic emerged. He was chosen to receive the 2024 Abraham Halpern Humanitarian Award from the American Association for Social Psychiatry. Previously, he received the Administrative Award in 2016 from the American Psychiatric Association, the one-time designation of being a Hero of Public Psychiatry from the Speaker of the Assembly of the APA in 2002, and the Exemplary Psychiatrist Award from the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill in 1991. He is an advocate and activist for mental health issues related to climate instability, physician burnout, and xenophobia. He is now editing the final book in a 4-volume series on religions and psychiatry for Springer: Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, Christianity, and now The Eastern Religions, and Spirituality. He serves on the Editorial Board of Psychiatric Times.

References

1. Lee B, ed. The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 37 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a Present - Updated and Expanded with New Essays. Thomas Dunne Books; 2019.

2. Lukyanova T. Why did journalists like me take Ryan Routh seriously? The Free Press. September 16, 2024. Accessed September 17, 2024. https://www.thefp.com/p/why-did-journalists-take-routh-seriously