Does the right commit 76% of the political Violence
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Was this fact-check helpful?
1. Summary of the results
The analyses reveal a complex and evolving landscape of political violence in the United States that cannot be accurately captured by a single percentage. The data shows significant contradictions regarding the claim that the right commits 76% of political violence.
Historical patterns indicate that right-wing extremist violence has dominated domestic terrorism statistics for decades. Multiple sources confirm that right-wing attacks have accounted for approximately 75% to 80% of U.S. domestic terrorism deaths since 2001 [1]. However, when examining terrorist attacks specifically, right-wing terrorists account for 11% of murders in terrorist attacks overall, and 63% when excluding the September 11 attacks [2].
Recent developments present a dramatically different picture. A study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that for the first time in 30 years, left-wing political violence has outpaced right-wing attacks [3]. This represents a significant shift from historical patterns, where left-wing terrorism attacks and plots remained much lower than historical levels of violence carried out by right-wing and jihadist attackers [4].
The Anti-Defamation League provides another perspective, finding that from 2022 through 2024, all of the 61 political killings in the U.S. were committed by right-wing extremists [5]. This data specifically focuses on political killings rather than broader categories of political violence.
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
The original question lacks crucial context about how political violence is defined and measured. The analyses reveal that assessing political violence in America is inherently subjective and involves complexity in assigning ideological labels to attackers [6] [5]. This subjectivity significantly impacts any statistical claims about political violence distribution.
Temporal context is critically missing from the original statement. The data shows that political violence patterns have changed dramatically over time. While right-wing violence dominated for three decades, recent years show left-wing terrorism attacks and plots have increased [4], fundamentally altering the statistical landscape.
The question also fails to distinguish between different types of political violence. The analyses differentiate between domestic terrorism deaths, terrorist attacks, political killings, and broader political violence categories. Right-wing extremist violence has been more frequent and more lethal in terms of domestic terrorism [1], but the percentages vary significantly depending on the specific category examined.
Definitional challenges represent another missing element. Sources provide in-depth analysis of left-wing terrorism and political violence, discussing its rise, causes, and weaknesses, while also noting the decline in right-wing and jihadist incidents in recent periods [7]. This complexity cannot be captured in a simple percentage.
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The 76% figure appears to be potentially misleading or outdated. The analyses suggest this percentage may have been accurate historically but does not reflect current trends where left-wing violence has recently outpaced right-wing attacks [3].
The statement demonstrates oversimplification bias by reducing complex, multifaceted data into a single statistic. The sources reveal that political violence statistics vary dramatically depending on timeframe, definition, and measurement methodology. Using a single percentage obscures the nuanced reality of political violence patterns.
Temporal bias is evident in the statement's failure to acknowledge recent changes. While historical data might support figures around 75-80% for right-wing domestic terrorism deaths [1], recent studies show a reversal of this trend [3].
The question also exhibits categorical bias by not specifying what constitutes "political violence." The analyses show significant differences between terrorism deaths, terrorist attacks, political killings, and broader violence categories, each yielding different statistical outcomes.
Finally, the statement may reflect confirmation bias, presenting a statistic that supports a particular narrative while ignoring the grim pattern of political violence that affects multiple ideological groups [5] and the inherently subjective nature of political violence assessment [8].