Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Attitudes towards deaths of political opponents from the left and right leaning sides.
Executive Summary
Public reporting and polling from September–October 2025 present a picture of rising political violence and sharply divergent attitudes about celebrating the deaths of political opponents, with polls suggesting much higher acceptance among very liberal respondents than among very conservative ones, and news coverage showing both partisan reactions and institutional concern [1] [2] [3]. Coverage of the Charlie Kirk killing became a focal moment that intensified political rhetoric and led to calls for greater security and accountability across parties [3] [4].
1. Why a single poll sparked headlines about a startling partisan gap
A YouGov poll published in September 2025 is reported to show 24% of very liberal Americans saying it's acceptable to celebrate a political opponent’s death versus 3% of very conservative Americans, a gap framed as evidence of asymmetry in attitudes toward political violence [1]. The poll figure appears in commentary that portrays the left as more tolerant of celebratory responses to opponents’ deaths; that framing is amplified by opinion pieces connecting the data to broader claims about intolerance. The statistic itself requires context on sample size, question wording, and whether "celebrate" was defined — details not provided in the summary [1].
2. The assassination of Charlie Kirk transformed abstract figures into a national moment
Reporting from September 2025 places the killing of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk at the center of debates about political violence, with journalists and experts linking the event to social media radicalization, polarized rhetoric, and gun availability as contributing factors [3] [5]. Coverage notes that speculation about motives filled the immediate news vacuum and that political leaders rushed to assign blame; both sides experienced heightened fear and defensiveness, and institutions like Congress responded by increasing security and threat assessment efforts [3] [4].
3. Memorial rhetoric showed the right mobilizing martyrdom language
A Vanity Fair account of Charlie Kirk’s memorial on September 21, 2025, describes speakers including high-profile conservatives using martyrdom and righteous fury language, framing Kirk’s death as a unifying and mobilizing event for the right and urging political action [2]. That portrayal suggests the assassination was interpreted on the right as both a loss and a call to arms, intensifying partisan narratives that can amplify grievances and recruitment. The coverage highlights how political symbolism at funerals can alter mobilization dynamics and media framing [2].
4. Mainstream reporting stresses complex, nonpartisan roots of political violence
National outlets emphasized that political violence cannot be reduced to a single party or ideology; journalists and experts cited a mix of extremist ideologies, online radicalization, and individual pathology as drivers, and showed examples of attacks affecting lawmakers and activists across the spectrum [5] [3]. The reporting underscores that both left- and right-leaning actors have committed politically motivated violence, and that focusing solely on partisan blame risks missing structural causes like social media ecosystems and firearm access [3] [5].
5. Institutional reactions show bipartisan fear and policy responses
Congressional reporting from mid-September 2025 documents lawmakers’ anxiety about safety, with House Republicans proposing a $30 million security increase and the U.S. Capitol Police handling thousands of threat assessments by year-end; the response was bipartisan in tone if not in solution specifics [4]. These developments indicate that regardless of poll-driven narratives about who celebrates deaths, institutions treated the assassination as escalating a broader security challenge, prompting resource shifts and behavior changes among public officials [4].
6. Research threads attempt to link prejudice, personality, and support for violence
Summaries from September–October 2025 note academic work connecting prejudice and online hate speech to support for political violence, and suggest personality disorder correlations may help explain why some individuals embrace violent acts [6]. While these studies do not directly map onto the YouGov poll’s celebratory question, they provide context on psychological and social pathways from hateful rhetoric to acceptance of violence, stressing that attitude surveys are one piece of a complex causal puzzle [6].
7. How media framing and partisan agendas shape interpretations
Opinion-driven outlets used the same data to advance different narratives: the YouGov numbers were amplified in pieces alleging a violent, intolerant left, while memorial coverage presented the killing as evidence of right-wing martyrdom and mobilization [1] [2]. This divergence shows how identical events and statistics can be instrumentalized to support political agendas, with pundits selecting facts that reinforce preexisting claims and audiences interpreting the violence according to partisan priors [1] [2].
8. Bottom line: numbers matter, but so does context — and policy follows fear
Taken together, the September–October 2025 material shows a real rise in political violence and a contested interpretation of public attitudes: a poll indicating notable acceptance of celebrating opponents’ deaths among very liberal respondents exists alongside reporting that violence stems from mixed ideological sources and structural drivers like social media and guns [1] [5] [3]. The assassination of Charlie Kirk crystallized these trends into immediate policy reactions and heightened partisan rhetoric; understanding risk requires combining careful survey analysis, forensic investigation of attackers' motives, and attention to institutional security responses [4] [6].