Is there a correlation between political rhetoric and instances of violence?

1. Public perception: most Americans link harsh rhetoric to violence

Major polls taken after high-profile attacks show a clear pattern: roughly two-thirds of Americans told Reuters/Ipsos that the harsh way people talk about politics “did a lot” to encourage violence, and Pew found many respondents explicitly cite rhetoric from “the other side” and polarization as a top reason for politically motivated violence ^{[1] [2]}. Politico’s coverage of those surveys underscores widespread anxiety — more than half of Americans even expect a political assassination in the next five years — which shapes political pressure for remedial action ^[4].

2. Scholarly debate: mechanisms exist but causation is hard to prove

Political scientists and criminologists point to plausible causal mechanisms — dehumanization, moral disengagement, online normalization and elite “outbidding” — by which inflammatory rhetoric can increase support for violence, yet stop short of simple cause-and-effect claims. Academic work notes that elite incivility “differentiates, delegitimizes, and breeds contempt,” which can be a steppingstone to violent attitudes; researchers also caution that the extent to which rhetoric translates into action depends on context such as geographic networks, pardons or social sanctioning ^{[5] [6]}.

3. Data on perpetrators: violence spans the ideological spectrum, with dispute over which side is worse

Multiple datasets and expert briefs find political violence across ideologies, but they disagree about trends and which side is more lethal. CSIS and Cato analyses referenced by Robert Pape and FactCheck show right-wing attacks historically caused more deaths, although 2025 data flagged by some organizations suggests an uptick in left-wing incidents for the first time in decades — a contested finding that depends on classification choices and time windows ^{[7] [8] [3]}. FactCheck emphasizes this nuance and warns against portraying violence as exclusively a left-wing problem ^[8].

4. High-profile events amplify rhetoric–violence link in public and politics

The assassination of a prominent activist and other recent killings have sharpened both rhetoric and scholarly focus. PBS and Foreign Affairs framed these incidents as part of an acceleration in political violence that both reflects and fuels heated speech; state leaders and coalitions (e.g., Governor Hochul’s briefing) explicitly tie volatile language to increases in threats and urge “toning down” rhetoric as a mitigation strategy ^{[3] [9] [10] [7]}.

5. Media, classification and agenda effects shape interpretations

Analysts warn that how incidents are counted and labeled matters greatly. Databases differ in methodology; classification ambiguities (what counts as “left” or “right” motivation) lead to contradictory headlines. FactCheck and Pape both note that different choices about which events to include or how to define motivation produce different conclusions, and political actors can exploit that uncertainty to justify policy responses or to deflect blame ^{[8] [7]}.

6. Policy and civic responses: calls to cool rhetoric coexist with partisan finger-pointing

There is bipartisan rhetoric urging restraint — local officials, governors and civic groups have called for cooling political speech to reduce threats — but partisan narratives also dominate public interpretation. Politicians and opinion writers on both sides ascribe blame to opponents, with some outlets emphasizing left-wing responsibility and others right-wing culpability; Bridging Divides and local op-eds urge civic norms and accountability as mitigations ^{[10] [11] [12] [13] [14]}.

7. Bottom line and reporting limitations

Available reporting shows strong public belief that rhetoric matters and scholarly work identifies pathways from violent speech to violent attitudes; however, datasets disagree on which ideology is presently more responsible and causation for specific attacks is disputed. The evidence supports concern that heated elite rhetoric can increase risks under certain conditions, but determining direct causality for individual incidents requires careful, case-by-case investigation and transparent methodological choices ^{[5] [8] [7]}.

If you want, I can: (a) compile the different datasets (CSIS, University of Maryland, Bridging Divides, Cato) and summarize their time windows and classification rules as reported here; or (b) prepare a short Q&A you can use to explain to readers why researchers disagree about trends.