Graham Platner, an insurgent Democratic Senate candidate in Maine, has faced renewed scrutiny after the emergence of his deleted Reddit posts advocating for violent political action. The 41-year-old former Marine, who now raises oysters, made these statements on the platform in 2018, during a period of personal disillusionment with government institutions. His comments, which have now drawn significant attention due to the rising concerns about political violence, suggest a worldview that equates armed resistance with social change. In one post, he wrote, ‘If people expect to fight fascism without a good semi-automatic rifle, they ought to do some reading of history,’ indicating a belief that certain historical events necessitate the use of force. Platner’s political campaign, which challenges the long-established Senate seat held by Republican Susan Collins, is characterized by a progressive stance on issues like universal healthcare and restricted arms sales to Israel. While he has not disputed the authorship of these posts, he has disavowed their violent rhetoric, describing them as the product of a ‘lost and disillusioned’ time. This recent campaign has also attracted the attention of younger Democrats and progressive groups, with the candidate recently earning the endorsement of several important labor unions, including the United Auto Workers. The controversy surrounding his past posts has now taken on heightened importance as it coincides with the ongoing discourse about the role and implications of political violence in modern politics.
Platner’s online posts have been particularly scrutinized because of their overlap with the broader context of increasing political violence. These posts have been identified as part of a larger pattern of rhetoric that includes other candidates, such as Virginia Democratic Attorney General candidate Jay Jones, who made violent remarks in 2022. Jones, who has since apologized and expressed regret for his statements, included a comment suggesting that former Republican House speaker Todd Gilbert should receive ‘two bullets to the head.’ The similarity in rhetoric between Platner and Jones has prompted discussions about the normalization and potential consequences of such language in political discourse. The recent emergence of these posts has also coincided with a renewed public attention to the issue of political violence, as seen in an article by Politico that highlighted the growing trend of confrontational rhetoric and its potential ramifications. These developments have placed Platner in a difficult position, as he must now explain the implications of his past comments while navigating his current campaign as an established political figure. The situation presents a complex narrative, reflecting the tensions between individual expression and the broader political climate shaped by the rise of more extreme or confrontational forms of discourse.