Opinion: Is this America’s version of ‘The Troubles’ of Northern Ireland?

In Northern Ireland recently, I was shocked by the number of people there who asked me, “Do you realize the U.S. is in the early stages of its own ‘troubles’?” “The Troubles” — Northern Ireland’s three decades (1969-1998) of violent ethno-religious conflict — killed thousands and injured many more. The impact was so far reaching that nearly everyone who lived during the period was directly affected or is close to someone who was.

If the American right and left agree on anything, it is that political polarization across the country is at an extreme, and that we may have crossed the line into our own version of the “troubles.” This was evident in the recent killing of Charlie Kirk, with Republican leaders painting him as a martyr and in apocalyptic terms, while Democrats condemned the violence but warned that President Trump was using the event to undermine American democracy.

In times of intense polarization in any country, the response of the dominant party to trigger events is the decisive factor that determines if they escalate or not. In late 1960s Northern Ireland, key leaders of the ruling party framed growing political opposition, including a peaceful civil rights movement, in increasingly hostile and ethnic terms, rather than choosing inclusive language and policies focused on unity. Northern Irish police cracked down on political opponents particularly harshly, and when the army opened fire on peaceful protesters in 1972 — an event known as Bloody Sunday — recruitment skyrocketed for the anti-government, pro-Catholic paramilitary popularly known as the Irish Republican Army or IRA, and violence soon escalated.

Although Democrats are by no means voiceless or without responsibility, Republicans control all three federal branches and a majority of states. Their policy choices are key, especially in regard to scaling back the use of polarizing language against opponents and halting the deployment of military units in U.S. cities. Particularly dangerous is that some of this language has been couched in religious terms, which turns political conflicts into identity ones that are far more difficult to resolve. Once the ruling party in Northern Ireland framed civil rights protests as a Catholic movement, moderate Protestant leaders soon found themselves increasingly outflanked by more conservative religious factions who framed dialogue as treasonous and a betrayal of core religious values, which undermined peace efforts and extended the conflict for decades.

Use of the military in domestic policing activities is also extremely risky for national stability. Sooner or later, troops on the streets become engaged in situations that provoke the use of lethal force, which then spark attacks on the military itself in a downward spiral of reciprocal violence. Paramilitary activity in the U.S. is growing, with independent estimates of about 75%-80% of militias being rightwing, while about 10%-15% are leftist. Heated rhetoric alongside military troops on our streets could quickly surge membership in and violence by these groups. Bloody Sunday in Northern Ireland in 1972 was followed by Bloody Friday several months later, when the Irish Republican Army set off 19 bombs in Belfast within an hour, killing nine and injuring over 130, provoking a surge in Protestant paramilitary volunteers and a massive escalation in violence across the island.

The way to prevent an American “troubles” was modeled by Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, a conservative Republican, through his public statements calling for unity and calm in the wake of the Kirk assassination. President Trump — himself a two-time victim of assassination attempts — could rapidly help reverse matters by appearing publicly with Democratic leaders to say that the nation is united against political violence without having to compromise on the fundamentals of his policy agenda. Federal and state governments also have a host of effective tools short of deploying the U.S. military within our borders. A more robust carrot-and-stick approach, which provides incentives for individuals to exit paramilitaries while increasing the penalties for membership, remains possible. A bipartisan public campaign against violence, similar in scope to the anti-smoking campaigns of the past, would also help to stem the slide into catastrophe.

Prior to the “troubles,” Northern Irish powerholders took some modest steps to prevent what was coming, but ultimately lost control as paramilitaries took initiative. Political violence can reach a point where a long period of bloodshed becomes nearly unavoidable. The U.S. is not yet there, but our leaders must make a conscious effort now to avoid it.

Kew, Ph.D., is dean of the Joan B. Kroc School of Peace Studies at the University of San Diego.