Support for Political Violence Is on the Rise

Source: Eneas De Troya / Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license

In the wake of the assassination attempt on ex-President Donald Trump, there have been calls from both sides of the political fence to scale back the violent political rhetoric that seems to have become a fixture of American politics, Meanwhile, Republicans in particular have suggested that such rhetoric on the left was a causal factor in the attack.

In a previous post after an intruder broke into the home of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and violently attacked her husband with a hammer in 2022, I noted that it was conservative leaders who were minimizing the relevance of rhetoric and its connection to violence at the time. I offered the counterargument that, on the contrary, “the more we normalize violent political rhetoric, the more we can expect actual political violence in the future.” In this follow-up post, I’ll provide an update on the ongoing risk of political violence in the U.S. by examining poll data that seems to show an alarming rise in support for political violence (SPV) in recent years.

To start, we should acknowledge that the United States of America was born out of revolution so the potential for violent political revolt is deeply ingrained in the American psyche. Today, Second Amendment supporters continue to remind us that the Constitutional right to bear arms was guaranteed by the Founding Fathers based on the potential need to resist a tyrannical government.

Looking at polls in the U.S. over the past few decades, while only about 10% of respondents believed that political violence was ever justified back in 1995, that number rose to 16% in 2010 and 23% in 2015, peaking at 34-40% between 2020 and 2022.¹ As for why people might support political violence, the most common reasons were: the government violating or taking away people’s rights or freedoms; and the government becoming a dictatorship and no longer being a democracy. The government violating the Constitution, abusing power (i.e., tyranny), and using violence against citizens followed close behind.

Both Sides Now

In recent years, a partisan divide over SPV has emerged from the polls. In 2015, SPV wasn’t much different between Republicans and Democrats. But by 2022, 40% of Republican respondents supported political violence compared to 23% of Democrats. Another 2023 poll found that 33% of Republicans and only 13% of Democrats agreed with the statement, “because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.”²

And yet, there’s good reason to be skeptical about claims that SPV is a predominantly conservative phenomenon. Recent findings of greater SPV among Republicans may be more a reflection of the Democrats holding the presidency, as well as what exactly is being asked in a given poll. In the 2023 poll just mentioned, for example, conducted while Joe Biden was President, it could be argued that the phrase “true American patriot” was a common conservative expression and so was a virtual dog whistle for MAGA Republicans.

Poll questions worded in a more politically neutral fashion or those that are alternately biased towards Republicans and Democrats suggest that SPV is actually more consistent across the two parties. Prior to the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election, 44% of Republicans and 41% of Democrats said that violence would be at least “a little” justified if the opposing party won the election (19-20% believed there would be a “substantial” justification for violence).³ After the contested election outcome and the Capitol insurrection on January 6, 2021, another poll found that a similar proportion of Republicans (12%) and Democrats (11%) agreed that “assassination of opposing political leaders is justified to advance political goals.”⁴

As the 2024 election looms, a recent poll found that 7% of respondents “support force to restore Trump to the presidency” while 10% believed that “use of force is justified to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president.”⁵ These results suggest that SPV isn’t so much a partisan phenomenon as something that seems justifiable to a minority across both political parties when the risk of tyranny at the hands of one's ideological opposites is seen as a viable threat.

What the Polls Don’t Tell Us

Partisan issues aside, a major shortcoming of polls is that they often force respondents into “agree” or “disagree” answers without exploring quantitative differences or whether agreement means endorsement of a general sentiment or a willingness to actually engage in political violence. Furthermore, given the anonymity of polls, we can never be sure just who serious respondents are.

Politics Essential Reads

Dealing With Election Anxiety

How Social Identity Theory Explains Political Polarization

Back in 2015, for example, the New York Times Magazine took to Twitter to pose the age-old ethical question, “If you could go back [in time] and kill Hitler as a baby, would you do it?” Forty-two percent of respondents answered “yes” with 30% answering “no” and 28% saying they weren’t sure.⁶ Does that mean that nearly half of respondents would really go back in time to kill Hitler as a baby if they could? Probably not. Researchers have come to similar conclusions about SPV being overstated in polls.⁷

Other studies have clarified that SPV is inversely proportional to the extremity of violence. For example, an ongoing poll since 2022 shows that 5% of Republicans and 9% of Democrats support a hypothetical scenario involving vandalizing political campaign signs while only 3-4% support a scenario involving throwing rocks at peaceful protesters. Contrary to the 2021 poll mentioned earlier, only 1-2% of Democrats and Republicans support a hypothetical scenario describing an assassination by stabbing.⁸

What’s particularly revealing is that respondents’ perceptions of SPV among those from the opposite political party were much higher for these same scenarios (38% for assassination and 50-51% for throwing rocks), suggesting that partisans vastly overestimate the violent potential of their ideological opposites.

Ultimately, what polls and studies about SPV don’t tell us—in part because political violence is much rarer than SPV—is just who might be at risk of actually perpetrating political violence. While there are psychological and social factors associated with support for specific politically violent scenarios,⁹ they are far from predictive at an individual level.

Based on what we do know about SPV, however, perpetrators might not be who we think they are. While we’re prone to imagine that it’s our ideological opposites who are most likely to commit acts of political violence, in reality they may be just as likely come from our own political party and share our ideological beliefs.

For more, see Does Violent Political Rhetoric Lead to Real Violence?