The Thinking ‘Kat: Blame Games and Harsh Realities
In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s murder, Republicans and their supporters have been quick to point fingers, blaming Democrats and the left for his murder, via supposed aggressive and violent rhetoric. It is allegedly the left which has a problem with inciting people to violence, but is this true, and even if it is, are Democrats and the left as bad as Republicans and the right for inciting violence?
Some may also suggest that this sort of finger-pointing is in itself a form of dangerous rhetoric, but then again, is the truth dangerous in this instance? Is that perhaps the reason why Republicans are so quick to distort the narrative, paint themselves as victims, and blame Democrats for anything they can? Because based on the facts, that appears to be what’s going on here. Let’s take a look at the available information, and see what conclusions can be reasonably drawn:
Political Violence
Whilst conservative Republicans have been full of claims that the liberally-minded Democrats are inspiring and causing violence, the reality is quite different. Based on the evidence, most US political violence is carried out by right-wing extremists, and this uncomfortable truth is one that Trump’s own government has been taking steps to erase from the public eye. The trend of the political right being more violent is not a new one.
To offer up a quote from the DOJ’s now-redacted article:
Militant, nationalistic, white supremacist violent extremism has increased in the United States. In fact, the number of far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism. Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives.[1] In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives. A recent threat assessment by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security concluded that domestic violent extremists are an acute threat and highlighted a probability that COVID-19 pandemic-related stressors, long-standing ideological grievances related to immigration, and narratives surrounding electoral fraud will continue to serve as a justification for violent actions.
Every piece of available evidence supports the argument that the right and Republicans are driving more violence than the left and Democrats, yet this evidence is not good enough for some. Unfortunately for those who prefer denial of facts, the evidence is not going to change to suit their narrative.
The Most Dangerous US States
Delving deeper into the idea that left-wing Democrats are more inclined to incite violence than their conservative Republican cohorts, let’s see which US states are the most dangerous. I’ll highlight Republican states in red, and Democrat states in blue, for clarity.
Homicide (per 2022):
| State | Homicide Rate |
| Louisiana | 16.1 |
| New Mexico | 12 |
| South Carolina | 11.2 |
| Alabama | 10.9 |
| Arkansas | 10.2 |
| Missouri | 10.1 |
| Alaska | 9.5 |
| Tennessee | 8.6 |
| Maryland | 8.5 |
| Georgia | 8.2 |
So, of the top 10 states with the highest murder rate in the USA in 2022, eight of those – including the worst state, and four of the top five – are Republican-controlled.
Aggravated Assault:
| State | Assault Rate |
| New Mexico | 603.3 |
| Alaska | 540.2 |
| Arkansas | 519.4 |
| Tennessee | 507.6 |
| Louisiana | 502.1 |
| South Carolina | 401.3 |
| Missouri | 374.2 |
| Michigan | 352.7 |
| Colorado | 350.1 |
| Montana | 335.7 |
Seven of the top ten states for aggravated assault are Republican states.
Rape:
| State | Rape Rate |
| Alaska | 134.0 |
| Arkansas | 76.0 |
| Michigan | 64.8 |
| Colorado | 63.4 |
| Wyoming | 62.8 |
| Utah | 59.5 |
| Nevada | 58.9 |
| Oklahoma | 57.5 |
| North Dakota | 56.7 |
| South Dakota | 55.8 |
Once again, the states with the biggest problem with the violent crime of rape are Republican states.
So, what is it about Republican states that renders them the most dangerous ones in the USA? Why is it that with the available information Republican officials seek to suppress, we can see that it’s the right of the political spectrum that is more responsible for political violence, and why are these facts resisted with such a dogmatic, determined effort by Republican supporters? We hear a lot about media bias. A lot of conservative Republican supporters love to claim that the media has a bias toward Democrats, yet believe their own resources to be impartial. It was a Republican official who coined the term ‘alternative facts’, in a vain and desperate bid to distract from the obvious. Information that runs contrary to the Republican framework is discarded, or as already mentioned, suppressed, as an inconvenience to the narrative. Donald Trump vapidly uses the expression fake news, and regularly attacks media outlets if they say something he does not like, in a clear effort to poison the well, and his supporters accept his remarks without any critical thinking.
With this in mind, could this be why Republican states are so dangerous? It’s hard to say. Certainly, the trend of Republicans to speak untruths, poison the well, and couch their arguments in inflammatory language is a widely-known one, and an unwillingness to dispute their leaders – a blind conformity if you will – won’t foster an environment where this aggressive posturing is challenged.
What of the George Floyd Riots?
One repeated point from some of my conservative sparring partners is to reference George Floyd, and the riots in the wake of his death, as though these prove that the Democrats are the party to inspire violence. Leaving aside the widespread condemnation of violence at protests against police brutality, it should be noted that when Republicans had the chance to condemn the insurrectionist riots at the Capitol on Jan 6th, they struck a divided, and divisive tone. Trump himself has tried to paint the rioters – who got five people killed – as political prisoners, hardly the statement of someone who wants to tone down angry rhetoric.
Nor is what happened on Jan 6th the only time that people have carried out violent protests in the name of the right. Charlottesville comes to mind, and Republican supporters conveniently forget the counter-protests against the BLM movement, which were not exactly peaceful. In the wake of Trump’s firebrand preaching ahead of the 2020 elections, where he insisted if he lost it meant proceedings were rigged, several right-wing groups pledged violence in his name. This is the sort of incendiary stance that should worry anyone who desires law and order, yet it is hand-waved away by his fawning flock.
The facts speak for themselves. Republicans are more likely to inspire violence through their rhetoric, and indeed it seems their policies (given the situation with violence in Republican-run states) than Democrats are, and until they are prepared to acknowledge that reality, little is going to change.
“The rioters – who got five people killed”
Before I even attempt to play wack a mole, I’ll just take this one:
• Ashli Babbitt, 35, shot by a Capitol police officer while trying to climb through a door near the House chamber.
She was the only person purposefully killed on January 6th.
And the rioters didn’t do it (she herself being a rioter…I suppose you could say she did it to herself but that makes a different argument).
Others:
Kevin Greeson, 55, died of natural causes from cardiovascular disease.
Benjamin Phillips, 50, died of natural causes from cardiovascular disease.
Roseanne Boyland, 34, died by accident from acute amphetamine intoxication.
Brian Sicknick died from natural causes, specifically two strokes.
Thank you for your comment Liz,
The most pertinent question to be asked is – does anyone die if Trump doesn’t incite a riot? What do you think triggered the strokes and heart failures on the day, and what led to law enforcement officials committing suicide in the wake of what happened? Does any of it happen is Trump isn’t actively encouraging people to ignore any election result where he doesn’t win?
Trump was not charged with inciting a riot.
Would there have been a rush on the capital building if he didn’t contest the election?
Most likely not. Of course, if his request for the National Guard to protect the capital building had been followed, there would not have been a riot at all. But that was rejected by Miley.
If we’re playing the “pertinent question” game of “what would have happened if” we can start with the fake report from a paid foreign operative, funded by Democrat money. How many lives were lost related to the Russia collusion hoax document?
How many lives were lost due to the democrat party bowing to violence by giving up and letting the cities run rampant with riots in 2021?
More police died that year in the line of duty (by far…about 3 times the second highest number) that year than any other in our nation’s history.
Think the CHOP fiasco is recent enough in our memory to point to as an example of how statistics can be flawed to the level of absurdity. Later called “CHAZ” (in an acknowledgement that this zone was ‘autonomous’, aka lawless) crime was massive. This was a left leaning movement yet the statistics for “left wing violence” in this zone are non-existent. There is only one citing of “right wing violence” in this zone.
When statistics are looked at individually it typically shows a very different picture. For example, in the past I have perused the ADL statistics for “white supremacy crime” and the examples were absurd. The incidences of actual white supremacy crime were very low, most obviously cherry picked.
Combatting these types of statistics requires a lot of time and effort, and I’ve found it just isn’t worth it. Much like cutting off the head of a hydra. The hydra likes it.
Just looking at the statistics above I can tell you that South Dakota does not have an abundance of crime. I do not care what statistics say, anyone who believes Rapid City is more crime ridden than New York City needs to spend some time riding public transpiration in both places. DC is a crime ridden hell-hole, btw (not on those statistics…red herring?)
It doesn’t really matter if Trump was charged or not, the fact is, people would not have rioted at the Capitol if not for his incendiary remarks and deliberate, pre-emptive poisoning of the well. The responsibility for that, and the deaths that occurred, rest with him and his rhetoric, rhetoric which Republicans gave a mixed response to, whilst Trump himself has played down what happened:
Meanwhile, the Democrat response to what happened in the wake of George Floyd’s murder was to condemn violent protest, not condone it:
So, the stark difference here is that Democrats do not call for violence, and don’t condone it – whilst Republicans seem to take a different approach.
Then of course, there is the evidence pointing to how the majority – a clear majority – of extremist mass shootings in the USA can be tied to the right:
Then there is the uncomfortable truth that Republican states are broadly-speaking more dangerous than Democrat states, as already explained.
Whether you care to acknowledge the facts or not Liz, it is Republicans and the right that are responsible for more violence than Democrats and the left.
“Whether you care to acknowledge the facts or not Liz, it is Republicans and the right that are responsible for more violence than Democrats and the left.”
You walk through a neighborhood with squalor, meth addicts, graphite on the walls and homeless tent encampments. There is screaming in the background. Is your first impression,
“Wow, there sure are a lot of conservatives here. Better leave this violent neighborhood filled with so many dangerous conservatives”? Or do you look for a poll and when it indicates this is a liberal city, just go “whew! no danger of violence here. I’m sure they all vote democrat”.
You can offer up anecdotes and stories, but what facts do you have to show Liz?
If something is true you should not just find it in a “study”, it should be kind of apparent.
I’m reminded of a study (this is a conservative one) where a couple of libertarians went to different places all around the US and came back with “data” asserting that inner city poor communities had just as much access to fresh fruit and vegetables as people who lived in affluent places with Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s nearby.
And people argued this was true…because, hey that gas station had pickles, a moldy apple, and a limp banana. “Hashtag facts!” Yet anyone who has lived in both places knows the truth because they’re seen it in front of their eyes. (as a side note, I can acknowledge the inner city might be short on fresh fruit while understanding this doesn’t require government intervention nor does it necessarily indicate there is a demand not being met. It’s quite possible to find a dearth of fresh fruit in a place where there is little demand for it).
I’ll try to pick something I think most of us can agree on so as not to be partisan. Imagine a study asserting there are more witches than fat people in the US. Hey there is “data” it must be true! How is that possible? It’s actually trivially easy. The first thing to do is define the parameters. If there is enough momentum the parameters can be very shifty to fill the numbers. Hey did you watch the Smurfs? That’s sorcery! Is that a crystal ball I saw in your photo? Oh, you claim it’s a light fixture, well now, that is something a witch would say…
And “fat” applies only to anyone who needs a personal crane for their caregivers to move them in bed. Voila we’ve solved the country’s fat problem (and come up with a new problem of sorcery).
That is a mechanism. The bread and butter of the witch hunters demand a supply of witches. ADL says white supremacy is everywhere and the most terrible, violent danger we have. Then they find examples to fill what they are politically motivated to find, or have a personal financial interest in finding.
Prison shanking? Hey that was a neonazi, put that in as a hate crime. Prison shanking from another group of people? Oh that was just random prison violence of unknown origin…
Muslim kills a bunch of white KKK members? Well that is also white supremacy violence of course…how? Well, the Muslim was a former KKK member so killing his former friends for not accepting Islam is really a white supremacy crime.
And so forth (those two above are not fabricated examples).
My facts come from observing the world around me. When crime was allowed to run rampant it runs rampant. Denver went from a beautiful city to a crime ridden crap hole in a very short amount of time. It doesn’t take a fancy statistics to note what is right in front of you. We almost moved to Portland. Also San Francisco. I can tell you I’m very very glad we did not seeing how those places have gone. The facts are right in front of you. And everyone can see it.
Baltimore is the place USAF medics and flight doctors go for training on combat wounds. They get enough experience in a few weeks working at a Baltimore ER to cover most of what they are likely to see. But it’s a liberal place so it must be safe and non-violent, eh?
Liz, none of these stories, none of them, override what the evidence shows. We can all spin personal experience in support of whatever our point of view is. The information that’s out there does not exist in a vacuum. It hasn’t been pulled from thin air. What’s more telling is that Trump’s government has sought to suppress some of the evidence pointing to right-wing extremism being worse than left-wing extremism. Can’t have pesky facts out there, ruining the narrative now, can we?
Ben,
I am obviously not going to perform my own data analysis of the history of crime rates in different areas. It would be a waste of time. As I mentioned, “right violence” and “left violence” are up to interpretation and the states even have different classifications of crimes (and those classifications change to fit the politics of the region).
But fortunately I don’t have to waste my time.
Before long that Justice department report that was brought to us by a former administration will be replaced by a new set of “data” that is completely different.
And then I can point to that new report and you will accept it as truth, surely.
Won’t that be a great day. (insert thumbs up emoji here)
Grace and Peace,
Liz out
@Liz
Ben adores his statistics. So, have fun.
What the Liberal Democrat news media does for “statistics” is they go to some Liberal Democrat organization that gathers up numbers and lies with them. In the greater scheme of things, here is where it places.
“There Are Three Kinds of Lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics” — https://quoteinvestigator.com/2022/06/22/lies-statistics/
I attended three large Conservative demonstrations Washington DC while I was living Northern Virginia. Every time I went, I made certain I got out of DC with the rest of the crowd before dark. DC is the capital of the most powerful and one of the richest nations in the world. Yet DC was a crime-ridden mess. So, it was not safe be in DC after dark, and that has become true of every major American city run by Democrats.
Consider an example of how irrational Democrats have become. They opened our borders and let anyone who wants to come across the border cross the border. Democrats would not even stop terrorists, drug runners, human traffickers, criminals, and nutcases. Even after we arrested the worst scum, they fought sending the scum back where they came from. Why? Who are they taking money from?
What was the solution of Liberal Democrats for “fixing” the borders they opened. Democrats engineered statistics to “prove” immigrants commit fewer crimes than Americans born in the USA. If you believe that nonsense, I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
It is a sad thing. There is no reason America’s cities could not be wonderful places to live. We have the technology to make them beautiful and efficient. Unfortunately, Democrats are corrupt, and they run the public school system. America’s worse schools are in the inner cities. Therefore, each of the people who populate these cities have a rotten education, and they are too ignorant to know how to fix the problems in their cities.
Listen to yourself Tom. You complain of rhetoric, yet you offer little else. You offer statements, not facts, not evidence. You aim to poison the well, much like your leader Trump. You may not like facts, but they won’t shift just because you want them to.
Tom is typical of the disingenious apologist, whether it be about religion or politics.
Honesty, evidence and being straighforward are not concepts he will readily embrace if it in any way butts up against his presupposed indoctrinated worldview.
Agreed it is sad, Tom.
They also said the open border was an unsolvable problem.
Then it was solved virtually overnight. Datarepublican is a great source for following the money trail to the NGOs that are behind Antifa, et al. They are losing their siphon. It’s not surprising people like Charlie Kirk are targeted with violence, rather than someone like Andrew Tate. Tate is useful to them as he reinforces every nasty stereotype.
By contrast, Kirk makes them consider the real world around them and defend their ideas, rather than accepting the propaganda du jour.
But like I said, I’m sure we will have more studies in the future and their results will be different. And somehow I suspect the “look at the data” folks won’t accept the new data.
Heck, Datarepublican has it already…those interested should just follow her.
She too fears for her life and has been threatened many times.
Maybe the host here is too young to remember how often (and quickly) “data” can change 180 out. I’ve been around long enough to have a rule in life that if something I read contradicts what I see, I’ll be very suspect of what I read.
That whole Gell-Mann amnesia effect is real. How often does the media get it right? Almost never. Then the data is gleaned from this inaccurate information. And future articles cite the inaccurate information gleaned from the inaccurate article. That’s how Rupar became a verb.
If we’re going to blame border problems and the evil Democrats for all of the USA’s woes, whilst ignoring evidence, then can we blame Republicans for preferring conditions that punish people for being poor, that demand conformity at all costs (with their efforts to erase the LGBT community, roll back women’s rights, etc), and so much more?
Thus far, I have yet to see you or Tom offer actual, tangible evidence to suggest that we should see the Democrats as the root of all evil. I have seen a fair bit of indulgence in the idea that they are the root of all evil, but nothing that actually gels with reality.
@Liz
Got to admit you follow some of these things better than I do. I enjoy reading your comments as more than I do some blogs.
Age definitely has something to do with Conservatism. We has such thick heads that there are some things we only learn through experience if we are willing to learn them at all.