Do republicans or democrats believe that violence should be used to reach poloitcal goals

1. Summary of the results

The data reveals a complex and evolving landscape of political violence in America that doesn't align with simple partisan assumptions. According to multiple analyses, right-wing extremist violence has historically dominated domestic terrorism, with right-wing attacks accounting for approximately 75-80% of domestic terrorism deaths since 2001 ^[1]. This contradicts any narrative suggesting Democrats are the primary advocates for political violence.

However, the landscape shifted dramatically in 2025, marking the first time in over 30 years that left-wing attacks outnumbered those from the far right ^[2]. This rise in left-wing incidents has been attributed to opposition to the Trump administration and its policies, particularly regarding immigration ^[2]. Despite this numerical increase, left-wing violence remains less lethal and less sophisticated than right-wing attacks, with perpetrators often lacking the weapons and tactical training to maximize their impact ^{[1] [2]}.

Public opinion data provides crucial context: 87% of Americans believe political violence is a problem, with 59% considering it a very big problem ^[3]. Most significantly, most Americans say violence to achieve political goals is never justified, with only 11% saying it can be justified ^[3]. When examining partisan differences, younger and more liberal Americans are more likely to say political violence can sometimes be justified, but this remains a minority opinion even within these demographics ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question oversimplifies a nuanced issue by creating a false binary between Republicans and Democrats. The analyses reveal several critical missing elements:

Historical context is essential: While 2025 saw a spike in left-wing incidents, this represents an anomaly rather than a trend, and right-wing terrorism could easily return to previous high levels ^[2]. The data shows that right-wing violence has been consistently more deadly and frequent over the past two decades ^[1].

Definitional complexity matters: Left-wing terrorism is defined as being motivated by opposition to capitalism, imperialism, or colonialism ^[2], while the analyses note that anti-fascist ideology has been used to justify violent acts ^[4]. These motivations don't necessarily align with mainstream Democratic Party positions.

Partisan perceptions differ significantly: Republicans are more likely to say political violence is a very big problem than Democrats ^[3], suggesting different threat assessments rather than different tolerance levels for violence. Additionally, President Trump and his administration have claimed that left-wing groups are responsible for the majority of political violence, but this claim is not supported by the data ^[1].

Demographic factors play a role: The data indicates that younger Americans across the political spectrum are more likely to view political violence as sometimes justified ^[3], suggesting generational rather than purely partisan differences.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains several problematic assumptions that could perpetuate misinformation:

False equivalency: By asking whether "Republicans or Democrats" believe in using violence, the question implies both parties have similar relationships with political violence, which contradicts the overwhelming evidence that right-wing extremist violence has been more frequent and deadly ^[1].

Conflation of extremists with mainstream parties: The question conflates the actions and beliefs of violent extremists with the broader Republican and Democratic parties. The data shows that most Americans across party lines reject political violence ^[3], making the question's premise fundamentally flawed.

Temporal bias: The question ignores the historical context showing decades of right-wing dominance in domestic terrorism ^[1] while potentially overemphasizing the recent uptick in left-wing incidents in 2025 ^[2].

Oversimplification of motivations: The analyses reveal that violent incidents are often driven by specific ideological opposition to policies or administrations ^[2] rather than broad party affiliation, and that only 8% of Americans believe it's acceptable to feel joy about the death of a public figure they oppose ^[3].

The evidence strongly suggests that neither major political party endorses violence as a legitimate means to achieve political goals, and that violent extremism represents fringe elements rather than mainstream party positions.