Last updated 4 days ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
An anonymous reader writes to us:
Why don’t you list in sequential order all the violence committed by the leftist lunatics since Trump began re-election bid. In addition to Kirk, at a minimum all the violent anti-ICE protests with foreign invaders blocking streets and burning American flags, all the violent Tesla attacks, three different interns murdered in DC, the two attempts to kill DJT, the murder of the CEO in New York, the political and the church murders in Minneapolis etc etc. I am particularly offended by the DEI mention of white supremecists. What about the frightful left wing violence at universities ?
This article would appear to have been penned by the former administration. There is the DEI pandering to white supremacy What violence have these unknown boogeymen white supremecists committed lately? To appear complete and fair you should give equal time to black racism against whites. Crime statistics indicate that blacks are more likely to kill whites than vice versa; e.g. the black felon who just killed the white woman in North Carolina, who clearly crowed on video that he got that white girl
The anti-Christian anti Jewish and antiMAGA violence is one-sided. so let’s not pretend it is bipartisan. Then there is the violence committed against American citizens by the invading illegals thanks to left wing policies.
Why not stick to the facts and just list the incidents on a time line so the reader can draw his own conclusions?
Political violence has reached alarming levels in the United States, with attacks crossing party lines and targeting figures across the political spectrum. Recent incidents include two assassination attempts against former President Donald Trump during his 2024 campaign, the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at a university speaking event in September 2025, and an arson attack on Pennsylvania Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro’s home. The murder of Minnesota Democratic State Representative Melissa Hortman and the 2022 hammer attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband underscore the breadth of this crisis.
The immediate response to such violence is predictable: blame the other side. This reflexive finger-pointing may feel satisfying, but it fundamentally misunderstands the problem and makes it worse. In brief, the reflex to blame ‘the other side’ misses the point.
Political violence in America stems from deeper systemic issues that transcend partisan boundaries, and the blame game itself becomes part of the cycle that perpetuates violence.
The Scale of the Problem
Political violence encompasses more than just high-profile assassinations. Experts define it broadly as the use of physical force, coercion, or intimidation to achieve political goals. This includes riots, terrorism, and the increasingly common targeted harassment of election officials, judges, and lawmakers.
The impact extends beyond immediate victims. Political violence creates a chilling effect that can “stifle critical forms of public engagement—such as voting, community organizing, and running for office—and chill free expression.” When citizens and public servants fear for their safety, democracy’s basic functions deteriorate.
Americans recognize this threat. An October 2024 Pew Research Center survey found that 66% of registered voters view violence against political leaders and their families as a “major problem” in the country.
The Numbers Tell a Stark Story
Data from the Center for Strategic and International Studies reveals a stunning escalation. Between 2016 and 2025, there were 25 attacks and plots targeting elected officials and government employees motivated by partisan beliefs. Only two such incidents occurred in the more than two decades prior. The U.S. has experienced almost three times as many partisan-driven attacks and plots as it did over the entire previous quarter-century, reaching levels not seen since the 1970s.
| Time Period | Number of Terrorist Attacks/Plots Against Government Targets Motivated by Partisan Beliefs |
|---|---|
| 1994–2015 | 2 |
| 2016–2024 | 25 |
Source: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
The nature of the threat has fundamentally shifted. From 1994 to 2004, 71% of attacks against government targets were driven by general opposition to federal authority, reflecting anti-system ideology often fueled by concerns about gun control and federal overreach.
However, from 2016 to 2023, that motivation accounted for only 29% of attacks. Instead, 49% of attacks were inspired by partisan political views—targeting opponents from the other major party. Violence is no longer primarily “anti-government” in a broad sense; it has become an instrument of inter-party conflict.
This shift suggests violence isn’t about rejecting the system, wholesale, but about using force to ensure one’s side wins within that system. It directly links the surge in violence to deepening political polarization, making it a problem of the political system rather than just one aimed against it.
Historical Context: America’s Violent Political Tradition
Current violence levels are alarming, but they echo recurring themes in American history rather than representing a complete aberration. American history features what scholars call exceptional levels of violence. Understanding this timeline shows that neither left nor right has a monopoly on political violence.
Revolutionary Origins
The nation was born from a violent revolution that was simultaneously a brutal civil war against Loyalists, establishing violence as a political tool from the outset.
Civil War and Reconstruction Era
The antebellum period saw escalating violence in events like “Bleeding Kansas,” where pro- and anti-slavery forces clashed. Following the Civil War, the Reconstruction period witnessed systematic terror by white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan. They used lynchings, massacres, and intimidation to suppress Black political participation and violently reassert racial hierarchy.
Labor Movement Violence
The late 19th and early 20th centuries featured violent confrontations between striking workers and corporate or state power. Events like the Haymarket Affair in 1886 and the Ludlow Massacre in 1914 involved deadly force from both labor activists and opposing authorities.
Civil Rights Era
The movement for Black equality faced vicious and systematic violence from white supremacists and state authorities, including bombings, beatings, and assassinations of activists fighting to dismantle segregation.
1960s and 1970s Left-Wing Violence
The pendulum swung again, with political violence coming predominantly from far-left groups. Organizations like the Weather Underground carried out bombings and other acts of violence, largely against property, in the name of anti-imperialist, social, and environmental causes.
This historical pattern reveals a crucial truth: political violence isn’t an inherent trait of a single ideology. It’s a tactic wielded by those who feel their identity, status, or vision for the country is under existential threat and who have lost faith in normal political processes to address their grievances.
The violence of Reconstruction was driven by white Southerners’ fear of losing racial and political dominance. The violence of the 1970s was fueled by left-wing anxieties over the Vietnam War and social injustice. To understand today’s violence, we must move beyond simple labels and ask what core anxieties and perceived existential threats fuel this specific wave.
The Root Causes: A Toxic Mix of Factors
Today’s political violence results from a toxic combination of multiple factors that have created a national powder keg.
From Disagreement to Hatred: Affective Polarization
A key driver is the rise of affective polarization. This differs from ideological polarization, which is about simple policy disagreement. Affective polarization is the growing dislike, distrust, and animosity between partisans. While Americans may not be as far apart on issues as often believed, they are deeply polarized emotionally.
According to Pew Research Center data, the share of people in each party with highly negative views of the opposing party more than doubled since 1994. By 2014, 27% of Democrats and 36% of Republicans viewed the other party’s policies as “so misguided that they threaten the nation’s well-being.” This “us versus them” mentality fosters zero-sum thinking and lays psychological groundwork for dehumanization, making violence seem more socially acceptable.
Dehumanizing Rhetoric
In this polarized environment, language becomes weaponized. Dehumanizing rhetoric—describing political opponents as “animals,” “vermin,” “demonic,” or an “infestation”—strips them of their humanity. This makes them seem unworthy of moral consideration and removes internal restraints that normally prevent violence.
This dangerous rhetoric spans the political spectrum. Former President Trump has called journalists the “enemy of the people” and described immigration as an “invasion” that is “poisoning the blood of our country.” Some right-wing media commentators have suggested the U.S. could “become Rwanda” or that political traitors deserve “execution.”
On the left, a 2004 MoveOn.org ad compared President George W. Bush to Hitler. More recently, some commentators have characterized large portions of the electorate as “deplorables” motivated by racism and stupidity, or have appeared to justify potential violence by saying people can “only be pushed so far”.
Recognizing this dynamic, 70% of Americans believe elected officials should avoid heated language because it could encourage violence.
The Digital Acceleration
The modern media landscape acts as a powerful accelerant. A key shift in political violence is its “ungrouping”—most acts are now committed by lone individuals who self-radicalize online rather than by members of formal organizations.
Social media algorithms designed to maximize engagement often create “echo chambers” and “filter bubbles.” These algorithms narrow the breadth of content that users see, confirming existing biases while limiting exposure to different viewpoints. A 2016 internal Facebook study found that the platform’s recommendation algorithms were responsible for 64% of all extremist group joins.
This digital environment breeds misinformation and conspiracy theories—from QAnon to stolen election claims—that erode trust in democratic institutions and provide powerful justifications for violence.
The Psychology of Extremism
Not everyone who spends time in this toxic environment turns violent. Researchers have found a kind of “psychological fingerprint” that makes some people more likely to be pulled into radical ideas. This can include things like having trouble remembering information or struggling to see things in different ways. Those challenges can make extreme beliefs—because they seem simple and clear—more appealing.
Social and emotional needs matter equally. Feelings of social isolation, alienation, or loss of personal significance can create a “cognitive opening”—a moment of vulnerability where individuals become receptive to extremist ideologies offering powerful senses of identity, community, and purpose.
For some, this leads to identity fusion, an intense psychological state where personal identity merges with the group. When this happens, threats to the group feel like existential threats to the self, making some more willing to engage in extreme acts—including violence—to defend it.
The Feedback Loop
These factors don’t operate in isolation; they form a vicious, self-reinforcing cycle. High-stakes affective polarization creates opportunities for partisan media, which uses inflammatory rhetoric to hold audiences. Social media algorithms amplify extreme content, creating echo chambers that spread misinformation and effectively reach psychologically vulnerable individuals. This environment fosters radicalization and, for some, leads to violence.
That act of violence is then seized upon by political actors and media, who use it to blame the other side, deepening affective polarization and restarting the entire cycle with greater intensity. This reveals political violence as a systemic problem, not the fault of a single actor.
Why the Blame Game Makes Things Worse
In the immediate aftermath of violence, a predictable and destructive cycle begins: the blame game. Leaders and commentators quickly point fingers, blaming their opponents’ rhetoric and supporters. This represents more than political squabbling; it’s a direct threat to democratic stability.
Fueling Retribution
The blame game’s primary danger is that it fuels retribution. Research by scholars Lilliana Mason and Nathan Kalmoe found that while a minority might justify political violence, three-fifths of respondents thought it could be justified if the other side committed violence first. By immediately blaming the “other side,” political leaders provide that justification, creating what experts call a “permission structure for violence” where “an act of violence can spur reciprocal acts of violence.”
Dangerous Distraction
The blame game is also a dangerous distraction. It focuses public attention on the opposing party’s supposed moral failings, preventing clear examination of shared, systemic drivers—deep polarization, toxic media ecosystems, and widespread social anxieties—that affect the entire country. It treats a complex societal disease as if it were simple malevolence from one side.
Strategic Exploitation
The blame game often isn’t an honest attempt to find causes, but a strategic choice to exploit tragedy for partisan gain. It energizes political bases, drives media ratings, and boosts fundraising by reinforcing the “us vs. them” narrative that is affective polarization’s essence. The blame game is a form of political arson: actors pour gasoline on fires and then blame the other side for the heat.
Understanding this dynamic shows that refusing to participate does not amount to moral equivalence, but is necessary for democratic self-preservation.
Building a More Resilient Democracy
The alternative to the blame game isn’t passivity. It requires commitment to the difficult, long-term work of building a more resilient democracy capable of withstanding polarization’s pressures. This means shifting focus from assigning blame to strengthening the nation’s democratic “immune system.”
Leadership Responsibility
The most powerful and immediate de-escalation tool lies with political leaders. Experts agree that when leaders unequivocally condemn violence—especially when perpetrated by their own supporters—partisans listen. This breaks the cycle of perceived justification and signals that violence is unacceptable and contrary to constructive political discourse.
Building Digital Resilience
A crucial long-term strategy is “inoculating” citizens against extremist propaganda and misinformation through media and information literacy (MIL) education. MIL programs teach critical thinking skills necessary to navigate modern information environments, such as:
- how to evaluate sources,
- separate fact from opinion,
- recognize bias, and
- understand algorithms’ manipulative influence.
Community Bridge-Building
At the community level, numerous organizations work to foster dialogue and understanding across partisan divides. Initiatives using structured dialogue and deliberative forums can effectively reduce affective polarization by correcting misperceptions about the other side and highlighting common ground and shared identity.
Institutional Reform
Addressing root causes requires examining institutional structures that incentivize polarization. Political systems with winner-take-all elections and low-turnout partisan primaries can reward extreme candidates. Reforms such as ranked-choice voting, which encourages candidates to seek broader appeal, could help lower political temperatures and reward moderation.
The Path Forward
The threat of political violence is real and its causes are deeply embedded in the current American landscape. However, the path forward doesn’t lie in a self-defeating cycle of blame and retaliation. It lies in deliberate, difficult work of rebuilding social fabric, strengthening democratic institutions, and reaffirming a shared commitment to resolving differences without resorting to force.
The choice isn’t between left and right, but between a cycle of retribution and a path toward resilience. America’s history shows that political violence has repeatedly emerged from different ideological corners when groups feel existentially threatened and lose faith in democratic processes. The current crisis reflects systemic problems that demand systemic solutions.
Rather than asking whose fault this is, Americans should ask how to build a democracy strong enough to withstand the pressures of polarization, sophisticated enough to counter digital manipulation, and resilient enough to channel political passion into constructive rather than destructive ends. That work begins with rejecting the blame game and embracing the harder task of democratic renewal.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
