Deadly Discourse: The Politics of Violence

Political violence isn’t a relic of history—it’s an active fault line running through today’s America. The question that dominates headlines is whether both left and right are equally guilty, or whether one side carries more of the burden. The data, the rhetoric, and the examples tell a complicated but urgent story.

⸻

what we mean by political violence

Political violence is the use of force, intimidation, or threat for political ends. It includes riots, assassinations, terrorism, and sabotage.

Violent rhetoric is speech that paints politics as war—framing opponents as enemies to be destroyed, calling for purges, or using dehumanizing labels. While not violence itself, rhetoric lays the groundwork for it.

⸻

what the numbers say

Right-wing extremist violence is both more frequent and more deadly in the U.S. than left-wing violence (PBS NewsHour).

A peer-reviewed study found that left-wing extremists are significantly less likely to use violence than right-wing or Islamist extremists (PMC).

Left-wing terrorism has risen slightly in recent years, but incidents remain far fewer and less lethal compared to right-wing violence (CSIS).

Scholars warn about classification and reporting bias, which can skew perception (Springer).

The bottom line: right-wing violence dominates in terms of body count and organization, while left-wing violence is real but less lethal.

⸻

rhetoric as fuel

Research shows that violent rhetoric from partisan elites increases support for political violence among their followers (Springer).

Right-wing rhetoric often includes:

“Take back the country” slogans

Conspiracy theories about stolen elections or immigrants

Dehumanizing opponents as “traitors” or “vermin”

Calls to purge, cleanse, or reclaim institutions

Left-wing rhetoric often leans on:

Framing action as defense against fascism

Justifying property destruction as political speech

Anti-police, anti-capitalist language

“By any means necessary” as a rallying cry

Both sides weaponize language, but the scale and effects are uneven.

⸻

right-wing violent rhetoric

Donald Trump
- “Knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. OK? Just knock the hell — I promise you I will pay for the legal fees.” (2016 rally, urging supporters to attack protesters)
- “When you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon—you just see them thrown in, rough—I said, please don’t be too nice.” (2017 speech to police officers)
- “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” (Jan. 6, 2021 rally before the Capitol attack)

Charlie Kirk
- “When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence … That’s when civil war happens.”
- “Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America.” (The Guardian, 2025)

Sarah Palin
- In 2010, published a campaign map with rifle crosshairs targeting Democratic lawmakers’ districts, captioned: “Don’t retreat, instead — RELOAD!”

Roger Stone
- “We will fight to the bitter end. We will never give up, and we will never surrender.” (Jan. 5, 2021 rally outside the Supreme Court)

⸻

left-wing violent rhetoric

Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX)
- “ICE is nothing but modern-day slave patrols.” (DHS statement, 2025)

Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN)
- “ICE has become the modern-day Gestapo.” (DHS statement, 2025)

Radical activist flyers
- “Hey fascist! Catch!” — recruitment slogan found on flyers distributed by leftist gun clubs tied to violent incidents (New York Post, Sept 2025)

By Any Means Necessary (BAMN)
- A long-standing slogan revived in protest culture, implying that violent resistance is acceptable if deemed necessary.

⸻

case studies: right-wing violence in the u.s.

January 6, 2021 — the Capitol attack, justified by election-denial rhetoric.

Charleston church massacre (2015) — racially motivated mass shooting.

Pittsburgh synagogue shooting (2018) — fueled by anti-Semitism.

El Paso Walmart shooting (2019) — racist manifesto, dozens killed.

Storming of Michigan State Capitol (2020) — armed far-right protesters opposing COVID restrictions occupied the state capitol.

⸻

case studies: left-wing violence in the u.s.

2016 Sacramento riot — violent clashes between neo-Nazis and Antifa counterprotesters (Wikipedia).

Alvarado ICE facility attack (2025, Texas) — coordinated assault on a detention facility with rifles, fireworks as diversion, and body armor; one officer wounded, 15+ arrested (Wikipedia).

Antifa-aligned actions — assaults and property destruction during protest waves, especially in Portland.

Eco-sabotage incidents — targeting pipelines, construction equipment, or corporate sites.

These incidents matter but rarely match the lethality of right-wing attacks.

⸻

breaking examples: fall 2025

Michigan church shooting (Sept 28, 2025) — A gunman drove a truck into a Mormon church in Grand Blanc Township, then opened fire and set the building on fire. Two killed, eight wounded, suspect shot by police (AP News, Reuters).

North Carolina waterfront bar shooting (Sept 27, 2025) — A gunman opened fire from a boat on a crowd at the American Fish Company bar in Southport. Three killed, several injured. Police called it “highly premeditated” and “targeted” (AP News, Politico).

Minnesota legislator shootings (June 14, 2025) — Multiple coordinated home invasions left state House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband dead, with others injured. Suspect had a political target list (Wikipedia).

Charlie Kirk assassination (Sept 10, 2025, Utah) — Conservative commentator shot and killed during a university speech. Motive under investigation, with ideological debates raging in the aftermath (Wikipedia).

These four cases show how fast violence can escalate from rhetoric to bloodshed, and how both right and left actors (or ambiguous lone actors) weaponize political grievance.

⸻

consequences

Democratic erosion — violence undermines elections and rule of law.

Feedback loops — one side’s violence justifies escalation by the other.

Crackdowns — governments often use left-wing violence as pretext for sweeping measures that also shield right-wing groups.

Global contagion — extremist manifestos spread internationally, inspiring lone actors.

⸻

conclusion

Both sides produce violent rhetoric and incidents. But the evidence is clear: right-wing violence is more frequent, more lethal, and more organized. Left-wing violence exists, but usually in protest clashes or sabotage with limited death tolls.

The danger is pretending this is symmetrical. Political violence corrodes democracy no matter where it comes from—but ignoring the dominant source ensures escalation.

⸻