Which party has committed political violence the most?

1. Summary of the results

The question of which political party has committed the most political violence reveals a complex and evolving landscape that defies simple partisan categorization. The data shows significant variations depending on the time period examined and methodology used.

According to multiple analyses, right-wing extremist violence has historically been more lethal and frequent than left-wing violence, with approximately 75% to 80% of U.S. domestic terrorism deaths since 2001 attributed to right-wing extremism ^[1]. This represents a substantial majority of politically-motivated fatalities over more than two decades.

However, recent trends show a notable shift in 2025, with left-wing terrorist attacks outnumbering right-wing attacks in the first half of the year, according to research by the Center for Strategic and International Studies ^[2]. Despite this recent uptick in left-wing incidents, the analysis notes that right-wing violence remains a significant threat and has been more lethal historically ^[2].

The assassination of Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist, has become a focal point in discussions about contemporary political violence ^{[3] [4] [5]}. This incident exemplifies how political violence affects both Democrats and Republicans, as evidenced by other high-profile cases including the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the attack on Rep. Nancy Pelosi's husband, the assault on Rep. Steve Scalise, and the plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer ^{[3] [4]}.

Experts emphasize that political violence is not limited to one party or ideology but represents a widespread problem affecting many aspects of American politics ^[4]. Research indicates that political violence often comes from lone extremists rather than organized groups and rarely displays clear partisan inclination ^[6].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question assumes a binary partisan framework that may oversimplify the nature of political violence. Researchers who track domestic terrorism emphasize that political violence is "coming from everywhere, not just one party or ideology" ^[5]. This perspective challenges the premise that violence can be neatly categorized by traditional party lines.

The role of social media in amplifying political violence represents crucial missing context. Analysis shows that social media platforms have contributed to the rise of political violence by allowing extreme views to be broadcast to large audiences ^[5]. This technological dimension transcends partisan boundaries and affects how violence is both incited and perceived.

The distinction between organized political violence and individual extremist acts is often overlooked. Sources indicate that political violence does not always display partisan inclination and is often driven by individual frustrations rather than coordinated party agendas ^[6]. This suggests that attributing violence to specific parties may mischaracterize the underlying motivations.

Historical context reveals that political violence in America has "a long, dark history" that predates current partisan divisions ^[3]. This longer-term perspective suggests that violence may be more cyclical and systemic than purely partisan.

The methodology for categorizing and counting political violence varies significantly between studies, which could explain conflicting findings about which side commits more violence. Some analyses focus on fatalities, others on incident frequency, and still others on the scale of planned attacks.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The question itself contains an inherent bias by assuming that political violence can be definitively attributed to specific parties and that such attribution is meaningful. This framing ignores the reality that political violence often stems from individual extremists rather than organized party activities ^[6].

The question promotes a false binary that could be exploited by partisan actors seeking to deflect responsibility or score political points. By asking "which party," it implies that violence is primarily a partisan phenomenon rather than a broader societal problem affecting democratic institutions regardless of party affiliation.

The timing of this question, following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, may reflect an attempt to politicize a tragic event rather than examine the systemic factors contributing to political violence ^{[3] [4] [5]}. This could serve the interests of those seeking to use violence for political advantage.

The question fails to acknowledge that both major parties have been victims and that the threat environment is dynamic, with patterns changing over time as demonstrated by the 2025 data showing increased left-wing incidents after years of right-wing dominance ^[2].