Corrupt Counting: Political Violence

There is an industry of left leaning organizations that deflect responsibility for political violence. We need a real accounting.

A new study was released on September 25, 2025, by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a bipartisan think tank. It analyzed 750 domestic terrorism incidents in the U.S. from January 1994 to July 4, 2025, and concluded that 2025 marks the first time in more than 30 years that left-wing terrorist attacks outnumber right-wing ones.

But, like nearly all such studies that receive mainstream attention, the study was deeply flawed. The authors themselves note that they omitted some of the biggest instances of left-wing violence. For example, the 20 attacks and firebombings of Tesla dealerships, multiple high profile terrorist attacks motivated by left-wing rhetoric about the war in Gaza (including the murder of two Israeli embassy staff and an arson attack on Governor Shapiro’s residence), and numerous attacks on ICE. If these violent incidents had been included, it would have had a huge impact on the balance between left and right because the overall numbers are small. The predominance of left wing violence would have soared.

But those flaws, which the authors themselves acknowledged, are only the tip of the iceberg. The deeper issue is that studies like this are used to gain insight into where our political rhetoric and organizing is leading to violence but they are almost entirely disconnected from the actual rhetoric of conservatives and Republicans. Many of the motivations for violence that are classified as “extreme-right” have nothing to do with rhetoric that mainstream conservatives use, or have ever used. For example, unlike Democrats (who fought to preserve slavery, Jim Crow and segregation), Republicans never advocated for racial or ethnic supremacy, and yet CSIS arbitrarily classifies anyone with a racist motive as extreme-right. In contrast, many of the motivations for violence that are excluded from “extreme-left” correspond to rhetoric that mainstream left-wing leaders use on a daily basis.

The coding criteria used for the CSIS study explains which motivations they consider “right” and which they consider “left”. In the Appendix, below, I present an examination of how each of these motivations for violence actually correspond to rhetoric that is prevalent on the left and the right. To remove my own biases and give the analysis a measure of objectivity, I employ AI, with an identical AI prompt for each motivation, and I rely on the AI do an in-depth investigation of how common each type of rhetoric is. See the Appendix below for the complete explanation of my methodology and the results of the AI analysis. Note: I did not know the outcome of this experiment in advance.

According to the AI’s research, only two (of eight) of the motivations for violence that CSIS associates with the right, are actually related to mainstream conservative or Republican rhetoric or organizing:

1. opposition to government authority, believing it is tyrannical and illegitimate and that it infringes on individual liberties

2. opposition to abortion

Six of the motivations for violence that CSIS associates with the right, are not related to mainstream conservative or Republican rhetoric:

1. racial or ethnic supremacy

2. misogyny, including incels (“involuntary celibates”)

3. hatred based on sexuality or gender identity

4. QAnon conspiracy theories

5. partisan extremism, where violence is justified against political opponents and parties perceived as advancing left-wing agendas

6. “accelerationism,” which includes taking actions to promote social upheaval and incite a civil war

In contrast, according to the AI’s research, four (of nine) of the motivations for violence which CSIS associates with the left, are actually related to mainstream progressive or Democrat rhetoric or organizing.

1. opposition to capitalism, imperialism, or colonialism,

2. support for environmental causes or animal rights,

3. support for LGBTQ+ rights

4. aherence to prosocialist beliefs or “anti-fascist” rhetoric,

And, five of the motivations for violence which CSIS associates with the left are not actually related to mainstream progressive or Democrat rhetoric or organizing:

1. Black nationalism,

2. adherence to pro-communist rhetoric,

3. opposition to government authority, believing it is a tool of oppression responsible for war and social injustices,

4. support for decentralized political and social systems, such as anarchism,

5. partisan extremism, where violence is justified against political opponents and parties perceived as advancing right-wing agendas.

This is a meaningful imbalance in the degree to which the motivations CSIS associates with the right or left are actually related to mainstream right or left rhetoric. But the bias is likely even greater than these biased categorizations suggests. The reason for this is because a disproportionate amount of the violence which CSIS associates with the right is likely motivated by the categories that are not actually related to mainstream conservative rhetoric, and never have been. For example, racial or ethnic supremacy accounts for a large fractions of the hate crimes CSIS counts as right-wing, but there are no mainstream conservative leaders who advocate for racial or ethnic supremacy, and the Republican party has never advocated for it. In contrast, a disproportionate amount of the violence which CSIS associates with the left is motivated by categories that are actually associated with the rhetoric and organizing of the left. Furthermore, as mentioned above, some of the motivations for violence most closely related to the rhetoric of the left, for instance, believing that the war in Gaza is a “genocide”, are arbitrarily excluded from the left's tally.

Unfortunately, as is often the case with these biased tallies, CSIS did not release it’s dataset for public scrutiny and analysis. For that reason it’s impossible to determine how much correcting for these biased coding criteria would increase the statistical predominance of left-wing violence even further.

Nevertheless, even with these deeply biased coding criteria, and even excluding the large numbers of violent incidents that CSIS acknowledges are associated with the left but excluded anyway, CSIS already concludes left-wing terrorist attacks outnumber those from the violent far right. If we corrected the biased coding criteria, and included the incidents which CSIS acknowledges are associated with the left but arbitrarily excluded, it would show that the vast majority of political violence is associated with the left.

On top of all that, CSIS likely also excluded much other violence motivated by left-wing rhetoric, including the numerous AntiFa campus riots attempting to silence conservative speakers, and the BLM riots which killed dozens of people, burned entire city blocks to the ground, and caused billions of dollars in damage. Because they did not release their dataset, we cannot verify whether they excluded that left wing violence or determine the impact of including it.

In short, the CSIS tally is meaningless propaganda to excuse left wing hate rhetoric. The industry of organizations that produce these biased tallies give the left the perfect excuse to avoid any self-reflection about how it’s hateful rhetoric is leading directly to violence. The reality, however, is that hate rhetoric and the violence it inspires are asymmetric problems, much worse on the left than the right. The left parrots generalities about “both sides toning down the rhetoric” even as they continue to call their political opponents “Nazis” and “fascists” in the immediate aftermath of murders and assassination attempts inspired by that exact language.

It’s time for an honest accounting, and time for progressives and Democrats to engage in meaningful self-reflection.

---

Appendix: AI Analysis

The following motivations for violence come directly from the CSIS coding criteria as described in their Methodology and Codebook document. For each violence motivation, I used an identical AI prompt, to instruct the AI to do an in-depth investigation: “Does the rhetoric and organizing of mainstream [conservative and Republican|progressive and Democrat] leaders and commentators champion [motivation for violence]. Respond with a yes or no and a one paragraph explanation.”

The AI’s full, unedited response to each violence motivation category is provided below, along with links to the AI output for verification.

How “extreme-right” coding criteria relates to mainstream right wing rhetoric

Racial or ethnic supremacy

No. While critics often accuse mainstream conservative and Republican leaders and commentators of using rhetoric that enables or echoes elements of white supremacy, such as warnings about demographic changes via “great replacement” theory or opposition to diversity initiatives, these figures typically frame their arguments around cultural preservation, meritocracy, border security, and opposition to identity politics rather than explicitly advocating racial or ethnic superiority. Prominent Republicans, including former President Trump and media personalities like Tucker Carlson, have publicly condemned white supremacy, though their statements on immigration and race-related issues continue to draw scrutiny for allegedly mainstreaming far-right ideas. Overall, the party’s organizing emphasizes individualism and traditional values, not supremacy, though associations with fringe elements persist as points of contention.

Opposition to government authority, believing it is tyrannical and illegitimate and that it infringes on individual liberties

Yes. Mainstream conservative and Republican leaders and commentators frequently employ rhetoric that portrays federal government actions—particularly under Democratic administrations—as tyrannical overreaches that infringe on individual liberties, such as vaccine mandates, regulatory policies, and administrative expansions, often framing them as threats to freedom warranting opposition and resistance. This is evident in statements from figures like Senator Ted Cruz and Speaker Mike Johnson, who have labeled COVID-related policies as “pure tyranny” and “COVID tyranny,” respectively, while organizing efforts like amicus briefs and legislative pushes to dismantle such mandates. While this opposition typically targets specific policies rather than the government’s wholesale legitimacy, some rhetoric extends to viewing certain federal institutions or actions as illegitimate, aligning with broader conservative themes of limited government and states’ rights to protect against perceived authoritarianism.

Misogyny, including incels (“involuntary celibates”)

No. While some rhetoric from mainstream conservative and Republican figures like JD Vance’s comments on “childless cat ladies” and Charlie Kirk’s calls for women to “submit” has been widely criticized as misogynistic, and critics argue it normalizes attitudes that appeal to fringe groups like incels, there is no evidence that these leaders explicitly champion or organize around misogyny or the incel subculture, which is characterized by extreme online hatred and occasional violence; instead, their messaging often focuses on traditional family values and gender roles without direct endorsement of incel ideology.

Hatred based on sexuality or gender identity

No. While mainstream conservative and Republican leaders and commentators often employ rhetoric and support policies that oppose expansions of LGBTQ+ rights—such as restricting transgender participation in sports, limiting gender-affirming care for minors, and emphasizing traditional definitions of gender and marriage—these positions are typically framed as defenses of biological reality, women’s rights, or child protection rather than explicit endorsements of hatred. However, critics argue that inflammatory language, like labeling such care as “mutilation” or associating LGBTQ+ education with “grooming,” can foster hostility and contribute to rising hate crimes, as seen in ads, speeches at events like the RNC, and legislative efforts documented in various reports.

Belief in the QAnon conspiracy theory

No. While elements of QAnon beliefs, such as claims of a deep state cabal, elite pedophile rings, and impending reckonings against political adversaries, have permeated mainstream Republican rhetoric—evidenced by former President Donald Trump’s repeated amplification of QAnon-associated accounts, refusal to denounce the movement, and sharing of related content on Truth Social—and figures like Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert have openly embraced or echoed its tenets during their campaigns, most prominent leaders and commentators, including Kevin McCarthy, Mitt Romney, and Liz Cheney, have publicly distanced themselves or condemned QAnon explicitly to avoid association with its fringe label. Instead, the party’s organizing often courts conspiracy-minded voters through aligned narratives on election fraud and cultural wars without directly championing the full QAnon conspiracy, though polls indicate up to 32% of Trump-supporting Republicans hold core QAnon views, reflecting indirect integration rather than overt promotion.

Opposition to abortion

Yes. Mainstream conservative and Republican leaders and commentators consistently champion opposition to abortion through rhetoric that emphasizes pro-life principles, support for state-level restrictions, and efforts to limit federal funding for abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, as seen in influential policy blueprints like Project 2025 that advocate for banning abortion pills and promoting fetal personhood. While some moderates within the party have pushed back against extreme measures such as defunding Planned Parenthood via reconciliation bills, key figures like House Speaker Mike Johnson have publicly condemned abortion, affirming the dignity of unborn life, and the official GOP platform highlights achievements like ending taxpayer-funded abortions. This opposition persists despite shifts away from a federal ban in favor of state autonomy, reflecting a core ideological commitment among the party’s base and leadership.

Partisan extremism, where violence is justified against political opponents and parties perceived as advancing left-wing agendas

No. While some mainstream conservative and Republican figures, such as former President Trump with statements like “stand back and stand by” to the Proud Boys or “when the looting starts, the shooting starts,” and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s past social media posts appearing to endorse violence against Democrats, have used inflammatory rhetoric that critics argue normalizes or implicitly justifies extremism against perceived left-wing opponents, this does not constitute widespread championing of violence by the party as a whole. Many Republican leaders, including those condemning events like the January 6 Capitol riot, publicly denounce explicit calls for violence, and data shows political violence stems from fringes across the spectrum, with recent analyses indicating a rise in left-wing incidents as well. The rhetoric often frames politics as a “war” or cultural battle but stops short of direct advocacy for violent acts in most cases, though it can contribute to a polarized environment where extremists feel emboldened.

“Accelerationism,” which includes taking actions to promote social upheaval and incite a civil war

No. While some fringe elements within conservative circles and certain Republican-aligned commentators, such as conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones, have employed inflammatory rhetoric that echoes accelerationist themes—such as calls for civil unrest or warnings of impending civil war in response to political setbacks like election losses or legal challenges—mainstream Republican leaders and commentators, including top party officials and major media figures, do not explicitly champion accelerationism as a strategy to promote social upheaval or incite widespread violence. Accelerationism is predominantly associated with far-right extremists and white supremacist groups, as noted in reports from organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Council on Foreign Relations, who distinguish it from conventional conservatism by its rejection of electoral politics and focus on hastening societal collapse through targeted chaos. Instead, mainstream Republican discourse often emphasizes legal challenges, voter mobilization, and policy critiques, even amid heated partisan language, without endorsing the violent, system-destroying tactics central to accelerationism.

How “extreme-left” coding criteria relates to mainstream left-wing rhetoric

Opposition to capitalism, imperialism, or colonialism

Yes. While centrist Democratic leaders like Joe Biden emphasize regulated capitalism and have historically supported U.S. foreign policies that can be seen as imperialistic, mainstream progressives such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez actively champion opposition to unfettered capitalism through rhetoric decrying corporate greed and exploitation, criticize U.S. imperialism in contexts like military interventions and foreign aid, and oppose ongoing colonialism, particularly in relation to Puerto Rico’s status and treatment under U.S. control, as part of their organizing efforts for systemic change.

Black nationalism

No. Mainstream progressive and Democrat leaders and commentators, such as those associated with figures like Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, primarily advocate for racial equity, civil rights reforms, and addressing systemic inequalities through inclusive policies like affirmative action and criminal justice reform, but their rhetoric focuses on integration and multiculturalism within a unified American society rather than promoting Black nationalism’s emphasis on separate national identity, self-governance, or racial separatism. This approach contrasts with historical Black nationalist movements led by figures like Marcus Garvey or Malcolm X, which sought empowerment through distinct Black institutions or territories, and while Democrats may support movements like Black Lives Matter for justice and anti-racism efforts, they do not endorse nationalist ideologies that could imply division from broader societal structures.

Support for environmental causes or animal rights

Yes. Mainstream progressive and Democrat leaders and commentators, such as President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and figures like Rachel Maddow, consistently champion environmental causes through rhetoric and organizing efforts, including advocacy for the Green New Deal, rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement, promoting renewable energy transitions, and pushing for policies to combat climate change and protect natural resources. While animal rights receives less centralized emphasis, it is often supported within broader progressive platforms, such as legislation against animal cruelty, opposition to factory farming practices, and endorsements of wildlife conservation, reflecting an interconnected commitment to ethical and sustainable treatment of the planet and its inhabitants.

Support for LGBTQ+ rights

Yes. Mainstream progressive and Democrat leaders and commentators, such as President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and figures like Senator Elizabeth Warren or commentators on platforms like MSNBC, have long championed LGBTQ+ rights through rhetoric emphasizing equality, inclusion, and justice, while organizing efforts include supporting legislation like the Equality Act, advocating for transgender protections, and mobilizing against discriminatory laws in Republican-led states, reflecting a core commitment to civil rights advancements for the community.

Adherence to pro-communist rhetoric

No. Mainstream progressive and Democrat leaders and commentators, such as those in the Biden-Harris administration or figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, primarily advocate for policies rooted in social democracy, including expanded healthcare access, environmental protections, and economic equity, rather than explicitly championing pro-communist ideals like the abolition of private property or class warfare. While some conservative critics label these positions as “communist” or “Marxist,” analyses indicate this is often rhetorical exaggeration, as Democratic rhetoric emphasizes regulated capitalism and democratic reforms, not adherence to communist doctrines. Historical and contemporary discussions highlight that true communist rhetoric is rare in mainstream U.S. progressive circles, distinguishing it from progressive or socialist-leaning policies.

Aherence to prosocialist beliefs or “anti-fascist” rhetoric

Yes. Mainstream progressive and Democrat leaders, such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, often champion adherence to pro-socialist beliefs through advocacy for democratic socialist policies like universal healthcare and economic redistribution, which have gained traction within the party and influenced its broader agenda, even if not universally embraced by centrists. Similarly, anti-fascist rhetoric is prevalent in their organizing and commentary, particularly in opposing perceived authoritarianism and far-right extremism, as evidenced by progressive coalitions uniting against global fascism and historical anti-fascist movements that inform current discourse. This rhetoric serves to mobilize support against threats to democracy, though it is distinct from more radical or violent anti-fascist groups like Antifa, which mainstream figures generally do not endorse.

Opposition to government authority, believing it is a tool of oppression responsible for war and social injustices

No. Mainstream progressive and Democrat leaders and commentators, such as figures like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Elizabeth Warren, typically advocate for stronger government intervention to combat social injustices, inequality, and issues like climate change or healthcare access, rather than opposing government authority outright as a tool of oppression. While they frequently criticize specific government actions—such as military interventions, systemic racism in policing, or corporate influence in politics—they seek to reform and empower democratic institutions to serve the public good, viewing government as an essential mechanism for progress and equity when accountable to the people, not as an inherently oppressive entity to be dismantled.

Support for decentralized political and social systems, such as anarchism

No. Mainstream progressive and Democrat leaders and commentators, such as Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, along with figures like Rachel Maddow, typically advocate for strengthened centralized government institutions to implement social reforms, economic regulations, and federal programs addressing issues like healthcare, climate change, and inequality, rather than championing decentralized systems like anarchism, which rejects hierarchical state authority in favor of voluntary, grassroots associations; while they may support some localized initiatives or community organizing, their rhetoric and policy proposals emphasize using national-level power structures to achieve progressive goals, often criticizing decentralization as leading to uneven protections or corporate dominance.

Partisan extremism, where violence is justified against political opponents and parties perceived as advancing right-wing agendas.

No. While some progressive and Democratic figures have employed heated rhetoric—such as calls to confront opponents publicly or metaphors that critics interpret as inflammatory—the mainstream leadership, including figures like President Biden, Vice President Harris, and congressional leaders like Schumer and Pelosi, consistently condemns political violence and emphasizes peaceful democratic processes. Data from sources like CSIS and PBS indicates that right-wing extremism accounts for the majority of politically motivated fatalities in the U.S., with left-wing violence rising but remaining less prevalent and often fringe-driven rather than endorsed by party leaders. Accusations of justifying violence often stem from partisan interpretations of statements, but official party platforms and responses to events like January 6 or recent assassinations universally denounce extremism, focusing instead on policy debates and voter mobilization.

Thoughts on a more robust methodology

I think a rigorous examination of how each side’s hateful rhetoric leads to violence is long overdue, because I believe the problem is wildly asymmetric, but the worst perpetrators are the least likely to acknowledge their role. But creating a rigorous methodology is not easy. The method I use above shows that the current approaches are bankrupt, but it does not actually produce a rigorous accounting. I’m not sure the best way to do this, but if I were going to do this examination, here is an idea for how I might proceed. (1) Create a database of all ideologically motivated violence, without applying left/right labels. (2) For each instance of violence, create a series of statements describing the ideology that are either direct quotes from the perpetrators, or where such quotes are unavailable, create a synthetic statement based on clear evidence. (3) Create a database of leaders, including their prominence (followers, news mentions, etc.) and their network of political affiliations. (4) Use AI to do an exhaustive search of the statements and writings of those leaders for ideologies matching those of step 2. (5) Produce a score for how much each leader’s rhetoric matches with each ideology identified in step 2. (5) Produce aggregate statistics for which groups use rhetoric most frequently associated with violence. Whereas this would have been a considerable undertaking fraught with bias a couple years ago, I believe it could be streamlined and made considerably more objective by leveraging AI today. AI is not without it’s own biases, but people are even more biased!