The brutal murder of the Minnesota state representative and her husband and subsequent wounding of another by a Trump-supporting evangelist—who planned more killings—exposes extremism born of racial nostalgia, religious fanaticism, and grievance politics. Precisely what Republican strategist Lee Atwater’s coded racism was intended to achieve. Something the Democratic Party has historically found repugnant. Please regard this as a wake up up call, it is time to vote Trump and his merry men out of office. This country deserves it. Let’s start with the midterms.
Boelter was appointed to a bi-partisan workforce development board by Walz, and the preceding governor. Of course, the right ignored that as usual. When President "Bucket Mouth" issues his orders, his ignorant followers take it as a command from God. If ever there was a justification for my atheism, Trump and his base are at the top of the list of reasons.
It’s time to stop doom scrolling, swallowing all the noise, and look closely. We can’t point to this and say it’s all one side or the other’s rhetoric. The fact is, we’ve seen cities burned, people doxed, swatted, Tesla bombings, CEOs killed, a presidential candidate targeted twice, military bases attacked, churches burned, and even my own fraternity attacked multiple times, accused of trying to control the world. Personally, I don’t trust the news or political rhetoric. It’s telling that there are paid services to gauge the accuracy of the media we consume. People are getting caught up in the noise, and foundationally, both parties are indirectly promoting this angst through back-channeled nonprofits, social media, and rhetoric. It’s time to stop classifying this as Republican or Democrat and recognize that riots and violence never lead to positive change: there’s always a cost. From my standpoint, the blame lies squarely with the extremist elements of both parties and the mediocre middle that does not take back the platform. You can’t deny their existence. Fanatics and extremists have been given power and influence, and this is the result: anarchy and strife. I fear they’ll drag us all down with them. What I don't see is courage on either side to return the political discourse to the sane middle. Unfortunately, Noise seems to get politicians elected. Compliance seems to keep them in office. Just my opinion though. That and $2.50 will buy you a inflation price hiked coke.
While I understand your perspective, the "moderate middle" is often overlooked rather than spineless. Social algorithms tend to favor more sensational content over calm reasoning. Moderation doesn’t trend as widely. This results in significant voices being drowned out by those who are louder but not necessarily wiser.
Nevertheless, we are out there and our efforts to promote balanced discourse—locally and quietly without much recognition.
The issue is not the absence of these efforts, but rather their lack of elevation. Instead of asking who will solve this problem, we should consider how to support courage, decency, and meaningful discussion. The Midterms will be an opportunity for these voices to be heard.
I appreciate the sentiment, I am to the point that I don't think elections are going to change any thing. With the cost of running, both fiscally and personally, are unobtainable. With the allowance of corporate campaign finance, I think we've incentivized poor behavior. IE Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. 5.6 billion has been funneled into campaigns, funneling money in to non profits, pacs etc. There is a measurable trend of negative campaign's, attack ads, and terrorist acts by ideology. There’s a strong temporal correlation between Citizens United and the rise in inflammatory rhetoric and extremist acts. The explosion of dark money and super PAC spending has amplified divisive voices, and data shows increased polarization and violence since 2010. See the chart: Terrorism in the United States by Ideology https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2022/03/the-rise-in-political-violence-in-the-united-states-and-damage-to-our-democracy?lang=en
The correlation between Citizens United and rising polarization is more than anecdotal. Some of the studies I have read, including those from the Carnegie Endowment, show a marked increase in ideological violence and inflammatory rhetoric since 2010. The amplification of extreme voices—often bankrolled by untraceable funds—have fueled distrust.
Lots of folks just do not regard what they hear on the news networks as believable. And rightly so, FOX admitted they entertain, not necessarily inform in several lawsuits.
But here’s the thing: acknowledging this decay is the first step toward dealing with the problem. Reform is possible. Transparency laws, public financing models, and even constitutional amendments have been proposed to counterbalance the Citizens United effect. It’s a long road, but not an impossible one.
Convincing folks to research some of the right-wing assertions may be a bridge too far. For example, I heard a statement that Trump was never sentenced as the result of the 34 Felony counts brought by NY. Of course, this is not true as judge did in fact sentence Trump but discharged the penalty phase. None of these folks saw any meaning in the fact Trump appealed the case. Simple fact: you cannot appeal a case where there is no sentence imposed.
The real problem may be knowledge. We are tasked with doing what any eighth-grade civics class should have done years ago, but were prevented by Republicans cutting educational budgets, eliminating civics.
It's a bitter irony to hear Republicans express concern over the decline of civics education—especially when Trump gutted the Department of Education and North Carolina's GOP-led legislature has slashed public school funding to the marrow.
Civics has been on a downswing since the 60s, it was changed to social studies, and deprioritized by STEM. The No child left behind act (2002) push didn't even mention it as a area of testing. Looking at the data, American trust in institutions has fallen with each generation after Civics was eliminated as a priority. Teachers according to this study don't even agree what civics is any more. In 2011, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor published an essay in which she’d written that “civic education must be understood, at its root, as education for informed participation in government and society.” She continued: “The goal is for students to have the knowledge to understand the political history of our nation, appreciate different perspectives, craft their own informed opinions, and gain the skills to persuasively advocate their views in the public sphere.” https://oconnorinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/When-and-Why-Did-America-Stop-Teaching-Civics_.pdf
O’Connor had it right. Listening to some comments by Republicans, it appears there is confusion regarding the Constitution's separation of powers. President Trump imposed tariffs that typically fall under Congressional authority. Despite this, some Republican members of Congress chose not to address the issue due to potential electoral repercussions.
Historians categorize such situations as examples of authoritarianism. If members of Congress avoid making decisions in the best interests of their constituents out of fear of losing their jobs, it suggests a need for change.
Tom Tillis had the opportunity to vote on matters that could have helped NC but choose to knuckle under. He obviously is more interested in that 270 grand a year plus benefits then the folks he represents.
A 2024 poll found that Republicans were more likely than Democrats or independents to say that violence might be necessary to “get the country back on track”. However, 49% of Americans overall believe the Republican Party is more prone to using political violence to push its agenda, compared to 36% who say the same about Democrats.
While most Republicans do not support violence, the data suggests a growing tolerance among a vocal segment of the party. That trend is part of a broader concern: over 80% of
Americans, regardless of party, say they’re worried about political violence in the U.S. today. These are the folks who, if they vote will put this country back on track with competent and responsible leadership. We need to do all in our power to convince these folks to vote in the midterms.
Please cite the poll. I cant find one that matches those statistics. Looking for the poll, and specifically, from what sample and margin of error. While I see that trend in most polls dating back to 22, I don't see those exact numbers, Navigator or PRRI. Keeping in mind that these polls are perception based, From the numbers, Most of the acts of violence seem to stem from Right wing Militias, and fanatical groups, followed by anarchist and anti-fascist groups, both extremist populations. Categorizing an entire group based on their Extremist wings ignores reality. This, hints at the fallibility of our current 2 party view, allowing each side to point at the others extremist and label the whole tribe as immoral. Some Good Data here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/military-police-and-rise-terrorism-united-states
"Data from recent studies consistently shows that political violence in the United States is more common among right-wing groups than left-wing groups. According to a 2022 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), right-wing extremists are significantly more likely to commit violent acts than left-wing extremists, with probabilities of 0.61 and 0.33, respectively, for violent acts in the U.S. The study also found that right-wing violence tends to be deadlier, with 13 of 14 fatal political attacks since January 2021 linked to right-wing perpetrators, compared to one from the left."
There is an interesting parallel that emerged from the following:
University of Maryland Study: Researchers analyzed violent acts committed by left-wing, right-wing, and Islamist extremist groups. They found that right-wing actors were significantly more violent than left-wing actors, with a probability of violent acts being 0.61 for right-wing extremists compared to 0.33 for left-wing extremists.
START Consortium Research: This study compares political violence across ideological groups using two datasets. It found that "right-wing and Islamist extremists in the U.S. commit violent acts at similar rates" , but globally, Islamist extremists engage in more violent acts than right-wing extremists.
PNAS Study: (Cited by Tom) This research examined patterns of violent behavior across ideological spectrum. It found that left-wing extremists are less likely to engage in violence, while "right-wing extremists in the U.S. commit violent acts at rates comparable to Islamist extremists".
I’m not disputing that, historically, the most violent extremists have tended to attach themselves to the United States’ only major right-leaning party. However, that still doesn’t answer my question about the numbers you mentioned.
My main point is this: when we let fanatic ideologs dominate the political conversation and when either party panders to them we only amplify their influence. Demonizing half the country for the actions of its worst actors won’t win hearts and minds.
Instead of reacting to every provocation from the fringe, Democrats should refine their own message and present solutions that appeal to the political center. A forward-looking, inclusive agenda will do more to attract moderates than constant finger-pointing, pandering and damning which is what drove so many to the right in the last election.
This article points to the right, and makes the argument that our extremists are less violent than your extremists. I'm saying all of it is bad, and the optics don't look good for either party. Maybe, I am the only one who sees both sides reveling in uncivil behavior. Much of this seems to be driven by campaign's on both sides to propagate false rhetoric. I see it in reddit, from the left, I see it on X from the right, I see it on CNN, and Fox. I hear it in restaurant's, at the dinner table with families and friends people parroting the talking headlines they've been fed while doom scrolling. All the while, becoming more radicalized.
Albert Pike wrote about this in Morals and Dogma, in 1871 “It is lamentable to see a country split into factions, each following this or that great or brazen-fronted leader with a blind, unreasoning, unquestioning hero-worship; it is contemptible to see it divided into parties whose sole end is the spoils of victory, and their chiefs the low, the base, the venal, and the small. Such a country is in the last stages of decay, and near its end, no matter how prosperous it may seem to be.” This sounds relevant now. Words from a man who lived through what this modus operandi brings.
I worry that we are watching the last throws of civil decay before a great upheaval fed by political left and right pandering to the extremes.
I'm struggling to understand your fixation on numbers. This isn't a course on statistics, and you're not a judge demanding case law. We're reviewing findings from credible studies—not building an argument for a courtroom. If you're so interested in figures, do what I did: find the study and read it.
What the studies show is chilling—violence, in the minds of these perpetrators (in this case, right-wing MAGA extremists), is framed as righteous, justified through religious belief. But let's be clear: these individuals are weaponizing religion as a mask for violent intent. Religion should inspire compassion—not to serve as an alibi for bloodshed. And unlike other traditions, Christianity doesn't preach a doctrine of “holy war.”
That leads to a second point: responsibility. Why has GOP leadership remained silent while this unfolds? Ignoring murder and mayhem isn't neutrality—it's complicity. And it’s nowhere near Christian.
Great post. I have pushed back on the "both parties do it" nonsense for years. Nice to see you using your much bigger voice to do the same.
The brutal murder of the Minnesota state representative and her husband and subsequent wounding of another by a Trump-supporting evangelist—who planned more killings—exposes extremism born of racial nostalgia, religious fanaticism, and grievance politics. Precisely what Republican strategist Lee Atwater’s coded racism was intended to achieve. Something the Democratic Party has historically found repugnant. Please regard this as a wake up up call, it is time to vote Trump and his merry men out of office. This country deserves it. Let’s start with the midterms.
Trump = propaganda
Thank you Thomas, I truly appreciate your post. We need to continue to remain peaceful when we are bombarded with adversity!
Boelter was appointed to a bi-partisan workforce development board by Walz, and the preceding governor. Of course, the right ignored that as usual. When President "Bucket Mouth" issues his orders, his ignorant followers take it as a command from God. If ever there was a justification for my atheism, Trump and his base are at the top of the list of reasons.
“Right or wrong, Trump’s country.”
It’s time to stop doom scrolling, swallowing all the noise, and look closely. We can’t point to this and say it’s all one side or the other’s rhetoric. The fact is, we’ve seen cities burned, people doxed, swatted, Tesla bombings, CEOs killed, a presidential candidate targeted twice, military bases attacked, churches burned, and even my own fraternity attacked multiple times, accused of trying to control the world. Personally, I don’t trust the news or political rhetoric. It’s telling that there are paid services to gauge the accuracy of the media we consume. People are getting caught up in the noise, and foundationally, both parties are indirectly promoting this angst through back-channeled nonprofits, social media, and rhetoric. It’s time to stop classifying this as Republican or Democrat and recognize that riots and violence never lead to positive change: there’s always a cost. From my standpoint, the blame lies squarely with the extremist elements of both parties and the mediocre middle that does not take back the platform. You can’t deny their existence. Fanatics and extremists have been given power and influence, and this is the result: anarchy and strife. I fear they’ll drag us all down with them. What I don't see is courage on either side to return the political discourse to the sane middle. Unfortunately, Noise seems to get politicians elected. Compliance seems to keep them in office. Just my opinion though. That and $2.50 will buy you a inflation price hiked coke.
While I understand your perspective, the "moderate middle" is often overlooked rather than spineless. Social algorithms tend to favor more sensational content over calm reasoning. Moderation doesn’t trend as widely. This results in significant voices being drowned out by those who are louder but not necessarily wiser.
Nevertheless, we are out there and our efforts to promote balanced discourse—locally and quietly without much recognition.
The issue is not the absence of these efforts, but rather their lack of elevation. Instead of asking who will solve this problem, we should consider how to support courage, decency, and meaningful discussion. The Midterms will be an opportunity for these voices to be heard.
I appreciate the sentiment, I am to the point that I don't think elections are going to change any thing. With the cost of running, both fiscally and personally, are unobtainable. With the allowance of corporate campaign finance, I think we've incentivized poor behavior. IE Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. 5.6 billion has been funneled into campaigns, funneling money in to non profits, pacs etc. There is a measurable trend of negative campaign's, attack ads, and terrorist acts by ideology. There’s a strong temporal correlation between Citizens United and the rise in inflammatory rhetoric and extremist acts. The explosion of dark money and super PAC spending has amplified divisive voices, and data shows increased polarization and violence since 2010. See the chart: Terrorism in the United States by Ideology https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2022/03/the-rise-in-political-violence-in-the-united-states-and-damage-to-our-democracy?lang=en
The correlation between Citizens United and rising polarization is more than anecdotal. Some of the studies I have read, including those from the Carnegie Endowment, show a marked increase in ideological violence and inflammatory rhetoric since 2010. The amplification of extreme voices—often bankrolled by untraceable funds—have fueled distrust.
Lots of folks just do not regard what they hear on the news networks as believable. And rightly so, FOX admitted they entertain, not necessarily inform in several lawsuits.
But here’s the thing: acknowledging this decay is the first step toward dealing with the problem. Reform is possible. Transparency laws, public financing models, and even constitutional amendments have been proposed to counterbalance the Citizens United effect. It’s a long road, but not an impossible one.
Convincing folks to research some of the right-wing assertions may be a bridge too far. For example, I heard a statement that Trump was never sentenced as the result of the 34 Felony counts brought by NY. Of course, this is not true as judge did in fact sentence Trump but discharged the penalty phase. None of these folks saw any meaning in the fact Trump appealed the case. Simple fact: you cannot appeal a case where there is no sentence imposed.
The real problem may be knowledge. We are tasked with doing what any eighth-grade civics class should have done years ago, but were prevented by Republicans cutting educational budgets, eliminating civics.
That is an interesting comment. In my republican circles I hear the same lamentation, Civics isn't being taught in high school.
It's a bitter irony to hear Republicans express concern over the decline of civics education—especially when Trump gutted the Department of Education and North Carolina's GOP-led legislature has slashed public school funding to the marrow.
Civics has been on a downswing since the 60s, it was changed to social studies, and deprioritized by STEM. The No child left behind act (2002) push didn't even mention it as a area of testing. Looking at the data, American trust in institutions has fallen with each generation after Civics was eliminated as a priority. Teachers according to this study don't even agree what civics is any more. In 2011, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor published an essay in which she’d written that “civic education must be understood, at its root, as education for informed participation in government and society.” She continued: “The goal is for students to have the knowledge to understand the political history of our nation, appreciate different perspectives, craft their own informed opinions, and gain the skills to persuasively advocate their views in the public sphere.” https://oconnorinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/When-and-Why-Did-America-Stop-Teaching-Civics_.pdf
My friend, we have both traveled. Lets leave it at that
O’Connor had it right. Listening to some comments by Republicans, it appears there is confusion regarding the Constitution's separation of powers. President Trump imposed tariffs that typically fall under Congressional authority. Despite this, some Republican members of Congress chose not to address the issue due to potential electoral repercussions.
Historians categorize such situations as examples of authoritarianism. If members of Congress avoid making decisions in the best interests of their constituents out of fear of losing their jobs, it suggests a need for change.
Tom Tillis had the opportunity to vote on matters that could have helped NC but choose to knuckle under. He obviously is more interested in that 270 grand a year plus benefits then the folks he represents.
Solid Analysis.
And the rank and file of MAGA (basically the majority of the GOP) is on board with the violence or excuses it.
Did some research:
A 2024 poll found that Republicans were more likely than Democrats or independents to say that violence might be necessary to “get the country back on track”. However, 49% of Americans overall believe the Republican Party is more prone to using political violence to push its agenda, compared to 36% who say the same about Democrats.
While most Republicans do not support violence, the data suggests a growing tolerance among a vocal segment of the party. That trend is part of a broader concern: over 80% of
Americans, regardless of party, say they’re worried about political violence in the U.S. today. These are the folks who, if they vote will put this country back on track with competent and responsible leadership. We need to do all in our power to convince these folks to vote in the midterms.
Please cite the poll. I cant find one that matches those statistics. Looking for the poll, and specifically, from what sample and margin of error. While I see that trend in most polls dating back to 22, I don't see those exact numbers, Navigator or PRRI. Keeping in mind that these polls are perception based, From the numbers, Most of the acts of violence seem to stem from Right wing Militias, and fanatical groups, followed by anarchist and anti-fascist groups, both extremist populations. Categorizing an entire group based on their Extremist wings ignores reality. This, hints at the fallibility of our current 2 party view, allowing each side to point at the others extremist and label the whole tribe as immoral. Some Good Data here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/military-police-and-rise-terrorism-united-states
According to Grok:
"Data from recent studies consistently shows that political violence in the United States is more common among right-wing groups than left-wing groups. According to a 2022 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), right-wing extremists are significantly more likely to commit violent acts than left-wing extremists, with probabilities of 0.61 and 0.33, respectively, for violent acts in the U.S. The study also found that right-wing violence tends to be deadlier, with 13 of 14 fatal political attacks since January 2021 linked to right-wing perpetrators, compared to one from the left."
There is an interesting parallel that emerged from the following:
University of Maryland Study: Researchers analyzed violent acts committed by left-wing, right-wing, and Islamist extremist groups. They found that right-wing actors were significantly more violent than left-wing actors, with a probability of violent acts being 0.61 for right-wing extremists compared to 0.33 for left-wing extremists.
START Consortium Research: This study compares political violence across ideological groups using two datasets. It found that "right-wing and Islamist extremists in the U.S. commit violent acts at similar rates" , but globally, Islamist extremists engage in more violent acts than right-wing extremists.
PNAS Study: (Cited by Tom) This research examined patterns of violent behavior across ideological spectrum. It found that left-wing extremists are less likely to engage in violence, while "right-wing extremists in the U.S. commit violent acts at rates comparable to Islamist extremists".
I’m not disputing that, historically, the most violent extremists have tended to attach themselves to the United States’ only major right-leaning party. However, that still doesn’t answer my question about the numbers you mentioned.
My main point is this: when we let fanatic ideologs dominate the political conversation and when either party panders to them we only amplify their influence. Demonizing half the country for the actions of its worst actors won’t win hearts and minds.
Instead of reacting to every provocation from the fringe, Democrats should refine their own message and present solutions that appeal to the political center. A forward-looking, inclusive agenda will do more to attract moderates than constant finger-pointing, pandering and damning which is what drove so many to the right in the last election.
This article points to the right, and makes the argument that our extremists are less violent than your extremists. I'm saying all of it is bad, and the optics don't look good for either party. Maybe, I am the only one who sees both sides reveling in uncivil behavior. Much of this seems to be driven by campaign's on both sides to propagate false rhetoric. I see it in reddit, from the left, I see it on X from the right, I see it on CNN, and Fox. I hear it in restaurant's, at the dinner table with families and friends people parroting the talking headlines they've been fed while doom scrolling. All the while, becoming more radicalized.
Albert Pike wrote about this in Morals and Dogma, in 1871 “It is lamentable to see a country split into factions, each following this or that great or brazen-fronted leader with a blind, unreasoning, unquestioning hero-worship; it is contemptible to see it divided into parties whose sole end is the spoils of victory, and their chiefs the low, the base, the venal, and the small. Such a country is in the last stages of decay, and near its end, no matter how prosperous it may seem to be.” This sounds relevant now. Words from a man who lived through what this modus operandi brings.
I worry that we are watching the last throws of civil decay before a great upheaval fed by political left and right pandering to the extremes.
I'm struggling to understand your fixation on numbers. This isn't a course on statistics, and you're not a judge demanding case law. We're reviewing findings from credible studies—not building an argument for a courtroom. If you're so interested in figures, do what I did: find the study and read it.
What the studies show is chilling—violence, in the minds of these perpetrators (in this case, right-wing MAGA extremists), is framed as righteous, justified through religious belief. But let's be clear: these individuals are weaponizing religion as a mask for violent intent. Religion should inspire compassion—not to serve as an alibi for bloodshed. And unlike other traditions, Christianity doesn't preach a doctrine of “holy war.”
That leads to a second point: responsibility. Why has GOP leadership remained silent while this unfolds? Ignoring murder and mayhem isn't neutrality—it's complicity. And it’s nowhere near Christian.
To be expected. Nothing new on that score.