According to, um, everyone, the murder of UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson has sent corporate executives into shock. After all, anyone could be next:
Those who advise companies on security issues say threats against executives are rising.... “The environment is explosive right now,” said former Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis, who now consults with large companies on how to mitigate security risks. “The threats are evolving and getting more violent.”
....Corporate executives have been targets of violence in the past, including during social upheaval in the early 20th century. In the early 1990s, Exxon executive Sidney Reso was kidnapped outside his New Jersey home as part of what authorities called a ransom plot that led to his death. Theodore Kaczynski, dubbed the Unabomber, sent exploding packages to airline executives and others over two decades, killing three people and injuring more, before he was arrested in 1996.
Go to the website of any security firm and you'll find confirmation of this. Threats are rising. People hate corporate executives. Social media makes everything more dangerous. You and your family are at risk.
But I have a genuine question: Is there any evidence, even a shred, that this is true? Security firms have been widely quoted about threat levels in news articles over the past few days, but of course they say threats are rising. They're trying to sell protection. They've been saying this for as long as they've existed.
And virtually no corporate executives have been killed by terrorist-style violence in the past half century. In the Wall Street Journal article above, they came up with only two examples: one targeted by the Unabomber in 1994 and another who was kidnapped and accidentally killed in 1992. Neither was a CEO.
Now, maybe I'm missing a few instances. Maybe the murder rate of executives is low because lots of them hire bodyguards. And I have little doubt that social media has made random threats more common.
But are corporate executives in any more actual, physical danger than before? I'd like to see some evidence other than a sales pitch from a security company or a private poll saying people are more scared than they used to be. Is there any?
"Those who advise companies on security issues say threats against executives are rising"
Shocking, really. I understand that those who advise stores on burglary say threats of burglaries are rising.
As we learn every two years in elections, fear sells.
Oh, Kevin, will you STOP already with all this truth-telling? What fun is it to try and run news channels that just talk about all that blah blah blah that people would need to actually vote for qualified, sane, and non-evil political leaders?
Bor - ing!!!
Social media threats are common now. Heck, I get threatened here nearly every day!
Revolution is not a thing. But the riff raff kill each other all the time. Maybe we get trump assassinated or some Arab dictator sodomized with a bayonet every once in a while. It’s fine.
When it comes to who is getting murdered on the job, CEOs are way, way, way down the list.
That may be in part why there is so much online snark about this murder - it seems like such an unusual event, people don't see their anger as potentially encouraging copycat behavior. People don't like lawyers very much, but because lawyers and judges do get targeted with some frequency, people are more circumspect about what they say after one is murdered.
The last time we had inequality in the US as bad as we have now, there was plenty of poors-on-plutocrat violence, late 19th c and early in the 20th century. The Frick murder attempt. The stock market bombing in 1920 killed thirty people. See https://guides.loc.gov/chronicling-america-anarchist-incidents
We used to have more anarchists on the Left in the US, but I expect we may see a resurgence in the next few years.
What if it's not an anarchist left but a populist right that becomes the driving force?
For decades violence among anarchists has been focused on property damage. It's people on the far right that have been killing others. Mostly it has been anti-government and race-war types, so the victims have been cops and minority groups. Because those groups are victims of all kinds of violence, we've kind of shrugged it off.
Trump has melded that traditional violent right-wing with populism. It seems more likely to me that the already murderous factions will slightly shift targets, rather than the anarchists will suddenly rediscover a desire for assassinations a hundred years later. CEOs are easily branded as a useful target to right-wing populists: rapacious wealth accumulation, DEI policies, elitism. The CEOs of banks have more to worry about than the CEOs of oil companies.
what if?
I think the event really uncorked the deep simmering anger over how bad the US healthcare system is. My theory as a non-practicing historian is that income inequality eventually always breeds radicalism in the populace - peak membership in the US Communist party was in the 1930s, also when the American Nazis were popular too.
It's complicated because someone went and did something that everyone has probably thought about. My god the stuff I've gone through with cancer and I have solid insurance.
Regardless, security is mostly BS. I remember Giuliani selling computer services and all I could think was, "in there anyone who knows less than he does about this?"
I like the comment about CEO's and risk, this isn't Russia where you've got to stay away from windows in your motel. CEO's pretty damn safe.
Trump brought three things to bear in 2024:
(1) Support for political violence
(2) Support for gun rights
(3) Populism
Combine all three and I suggest we have the makings of a rise in a particular form of populist-driven violence. So, I do believe we could be seeing an explosion of targeted violence, and it would be rather ironic if Trump became victim of his own rhetoric -- third time's the charm? -- if not comically tragic that he could not foresee the consequences of his actions.
Fashion fades but style is forever,
https://www.reddit.com/r/findfashion/comments/1h9a9i8/i_need_a_new_jacket_for_winter_where_can_i_buy/
It's certainly easier to find and target someone than ever before. I think it would be silly to claim otherwise.
It would then follow that there's more danger to potential targets than ever before.
Then there are our lax gun laws...
- School/mass shootings
- Jan 6th
- Just elected a pro-vengeance/pro-violence president
- Celebrity status of shooters/killers amongst the right wing cults
- more guns than ever
- copycats are a thing
Not exactly data that you can easily chart and fit a trendline to to influence how its interpreted, but certainly more reason to worry than at any point in the recent past.
"... accidentally killed ..."
Not really. According to wikipedia:
"... she and her husband confined him to a pine box in a metal storage facility, giving him very little food and water, and no medical treatment for his bullet wound. Three days after the kidnapping, Reso died from heat and exhaustion. ..."
After most headline-grabbing shootings, there's a concerted cry for more gun control.
But not this time.
Why bother after Sandy Hook?
And the SCOTUS has declared that the well regulated militia referenced in the 2nd Amendment refers to anyone with a gun and a gripe. Ammosexuals have shouted down reasonable gun control.
But no. After each school shooting, mass shooting, even the thing where the Felon got his little ear dinged, there was a big outcry that we need to get guns out of people's hands. Sandy Hook was TWELVE YEARS AGO (this week! ironically), and the outcry over lack of gun control has arisen many, many times since.
After twelve years of "no atrocity too awful", people still kept up the fight. And yet, this guy was different.
After the election, violence against perceived injustice no longer a felony, it's a patriotic duty!
Whatever the real threat may be, executives (esp. in healthcare) do now have something more to think about.
Take Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, for example.
November: Company announces it will limit the amount of time it covers anesthesia for surgeries in three states beginning Feb. 1. Announcement draws widespread criticism but no change from Anthem.
December 4: Brian Thompson is killed.
December 5: Anthem says it will not proceed with the policy change after all.
The Forbes headline on the story attributes the reversal to "intense pushback." Which is a pretty fancy euphemism for the murder of a healthcare CEO, but I think people get the idea.