Which political party commits more political violence

1. Summary of the results

The question of which political party commits more political violence reveals a complex landscape with significant data pointing toward right-wing extremism as the more lethal and historically dominant form of political violence in the United States. Multiple analyses consistently show that right-wing extremist violence accounts for approximately 75% to 80% of U.S. domestic terrorism deaths since 2001 ^[1]. This represents a substantial majority of fatal political violence over more than two decades.

However, 2025 marks a notable shift in the frequency of incidents, with left-wing terrorism incidents rising significantly. For the first time in over 30 years, left-wing attacks outnumber those from the far right in 2025 ^[2]. Despite this increase in frequency, the analyses emphasize that the overall lethality of left-wing attacks remains low ^[2], suggesting a distinction between the number of incidents and their deadly impact.

The data reveals that there have been around 150 politically motivated attacks in the first half of 2025, which is nearly twice as many as the same period last year ^[3]. This dramatic increase affects both sides of the political spectrum but demonstrates the escalating nature of political violence generally.

Public perception of political violence shows broad concern across party lines, with 59% of Americans considering it a very big problem ^[4]. However, opinions on which side poses a greater threat are largely split along party lines ^[4], indicating that partisan perspectives significantly influence how Americans interpret political violence data.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks crucial historical context that would provide a more complete understanding of political violence patterns. Political violence is described as "a feature of both the left and right" and fits into "a long, dark history" of violence in America ^[5], suggesting this is not a new phenomenon but part of broader historical patterns that transcend current political divisions.

The analyses reveal important nuances missing from a simple "which party commits more" framing. While right-wing violence has been more deadly historically, the recent surge in left-wing incidents represents a significant trend reversal ^[2]. This suggests that political violence patterns can shift over time and may not follow consistent trajectories.

The distinction between frequency and lethality emerges as a critical missing element in the original question. The data shows that while left-wing incidents may be increasing in number, right-wing attacks continue to be more deadly, indicating different tactical approaches and outcomes between the two sides.

Additionally, the analyses suggest that both sides engage in political violence but potentially with different characteristics and motivations ^{[3] [5]}. The original question's binary framing may oversimplify a phenomenon that involves multiple factors including ideology, tactics, targets, and historical context.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains an inherent bias by framing political violence as a competition between parties rather than examining it as a broader societal problem. This framing encourages partisan interpretation rather than objective analysis of a serious national security issue.

The question assumes that political violence can be neatly categorized by party affiliation, which may not capture the full spectrum of extremist violence. The analyses show that extremist violence often transcends traditional party boundaries and involves various ideological motivations that don't always align with mainstream political parties ^{[1] [5]}.

The timing of asking this question is significant, as it comes during a period when political violence incidents have nearly doubled ^[3], potentially making any answer more inflammatory and less constructive. The question could inadvertently contribute to partisan tensions rather than promoting understanding of the underlying causes and solutions.

Furthermore, the binary nature of the question ignores the reality that most Americans across party lines view political violence as problematic ^[4], suggesting that framing it as a partisan issue may misrepresent public sentiment and obscure opportunities for bipartisan solutions to address this growing threat to democratic institutions.