What role have social movements and extremist groups played in party-linked political violence?
Executive summary
Social movements and extremist groups have both driven and channeled party-linked political violence in the United States by supplying ideology, networks, tactics and rhetorical cover that can be amplified during electoral contests, with right-wing extremist actors currently responsible for a disproportionate share of incidents even as some left-wing violence has risen recently [1] [2] [3]. The relationship is complex: historical examples show parties sometimes instrumentalized violence around elections, contemporary data show decentralised networks and lone actors are prominent, and social media and partisan rhetoric accelerate normalization and recruitment [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. Historical precedents: parties, movements and election-linked terror
Political actors have long used social movements and violent groups as instruments of electoral strategy, most starkly in the post-Reconstruction South where white supremacist violence and lynchings spiked before elections to shape voting coalitions and protect party power—an explicit example of parties leveraging violent movements to affect outcomes [4].
2. The contemporary imbalance: right-wing dominance but a shifting map
Empirical studies and expert analyses show that the majority of recent political violence and extremist killings have been committed by actors aligned with right-wing ideologies, with multiple datasets and reviews finding right-wing incidents more frequent and deadlier than left-wing incidents, although some reporting notes an uptick in left-wing incidents in 2025 [1] [2] [8] [3].
3. How social movements become vectors for violence: pathways and digital accelerants
Social movements provide narratives, grievances and social reinforcement that can radicalize adherents; online ecosystems and partisan media can normalize threats and make violent tactics seem acceptable, turning rhetoric into deeds and increasing threats against election officials and targets linked to partisan disputes [7] [9] [10].
4. Parties, rhetoric and instrumentalization: who condones, who condemns
Party elites and political leaders shape whether movement claims of grievance translate into violence: denunciations can blunt momentum, while equivocation or celebratory signals from influential actors can embolden extremists who perceive their actions as sanctioned or politically useful, a dynamic documented in analyses of contemporary partisan discourse and enforcement responses [11] [3].
5. Organisational form matters: groups, networks and lone actors
Extremist violence today often stems less from hierarchical organisations and more from decentralised networks and lone actors connected to movements—research and government assessments emphasise that small cells and radicalized individuals linked to broader movements pose acute risks and complicate attribution to single parties [3] [6] [12].
6. Social-movement theory and the levers to reduce escalation
Social-movement research finds that opportunities, policing choices and political openings can either accelerate or brake violence: facilitating nonviolent channels for grievance, avoiding militarised responses that inflame contention, and engaging civil-society intermediaries are evidence-backed strategies to reduce the odds that movements radicalize into sustained campaign-linked violence [13] [14].
7. Bottom line: movements supply fuel, parties provide context, extremists supply the spark
The role of social movements and extremist groups in party-linked political violence is not deterministic but catalytic: movements create grievances and moral frameworks, extremist groups and networks operationalize tactics, and party rhetoric and institutional incentives determine whether violence is rewarded, punished or ignored—making prevention a combined political, policing and civic challenge rather than merely a law-enforcement problem [8] [11] [13].