The Divide Over Political Violence: Perception Vs. Reality
The debate over political violence has exploded in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s murder last week. New polling, commentary, and government actions are adding fuel — with some (including the president) blaming the “radical left,” while there is data showing the far right has been to blame for more violence in recent decades.
Vice President JD Vance claimed earlier this week that liberals are “much likelier to defend and celebrate political violence,” citing fresh YouGov polling that found around a quarter of very liberal Americans say it is acceptable to feel happy about a political opponent's death. That’s compared to 3% of very conservative respondents. A similar breakdown was found when asked if political violence is justified, with younger liberals especially likely to agree.
But context is important to consider, especially in the aftermath of an event as shocking and traumatic as the assassination of a political leader.
THE DATA DEBATE
Timing matters: for example, people are far more likely to describe political violence as a “very big problem” after someone they agree with is attacked. That was apparent in the aftermath of Kirk’s murder, the assassination of Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman, and the attempted attacks on Trump and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro.
It also matters how polling questions are asked: an earlier survey, conducted by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute, found that Republicans expressed more support for violence when it was presented as something that “true American patriots” must resort to in order “to save our country.”
Bottom line: The reality is more complicated than any single poll or talking point.
“What is interesting is the way polls work, folks, is you can often get a different result based on the way you ask questions and that’s important to think about here,” Mosh explains on this week’s episode of the #AMA podcast — exclusively for Mo News Premium members.
VIOLENT ACTS
Acts of political violence have been perpetrated by both right- and left-wing extremists. The volatile period of the 1960s and early 1970s saw more acts of political violence committed by left-wing extremists, while right-wing violence was more prevalent from around 1972—2018, according to one expert. Recently, researchers say we’re seeing a rise in violent acts committed by people with leftist views, no dominant political views, or a mix of fringe ideologies.
A major survey from the University of Maryland’s terrorism research program found that between 1948–2018, right-wing extremists were about twice as likely to engage in violent behavior, compared with left-wing extremists (about 560 far-right cases vs 120 far-left).
Data from the conservative Cato Institute shows that, excluding 9/11, right-wing extremists were behind 63% of politically-motivated or terrorist attacks, while left-wing extremists were behind 10%. Jihadists were behind 23% (down from 87% when you include 9/11).
Last week, the Justice Department removed from its website a study showing that far-right extremists carried out the vast majority of ideologically motivated homicides since 1990.
Complicating factor: Many recent acts of violence have been committed by people who do not fit squarely into the right or left — including the suspect in Kirk’s murder. They are more likely linked by radical ideologies that exist in extreme corners of the internet.
WHY IT MATTERS
Experts say the real danger is a self-reinforcing cycle: partisans wildly overestimate their opponents’ support for violence — sometimes by four times as much. That fear risks fueling the next act.
“This era of violent populism will get worse before it gets better,” political violence expert Robert Pape told The Wall Street Journal. “We’re headed for more trouble.”