Is America's Left Developing an 'Assassin Culture'?

A wave of Tesla attacks, conservative swatting incidents, and inflammatory rhetoric from Democratic leaders reveals how political violence becomes acceptable when directed at the 'right' targets.

Paid subscribers get this full article now—it will be free to everyone in a week! Upgrade for early access and exclusive goodies.

My husband and I are not ones to pass love notes to each other, instead, we share news headlines, X posts, and memes. It is our love language. Last week he shared a three-word X post from journalist Sharyl Attkisson that said, "I Was Swatted."

Earlier this month, my news feed was filled with headlines about attacks on Tesla showrooms and continuing vandalism of private Tesla vehicles. Two weeks ago, I watched a video of Taylor Lorenz being interviewed on CNN, in which she giggled when talking about the alleged assassin Luigi Mangione while describing him as moral.

These aren't isolated incidents. They're symptoms of something more disturbing taking root in our national consciousness.

Since Trump returned to the White House in January, I've watched a troubling pattern emerge—one that's increasingly difficult to ignore or dismiss as random acts of violence. It makes me wonder if we are witnessing the birth of what I can only describe as an "assassin culture," where political violence is normalized, excused, and sometimes even celebrated, depending entirely on who's targeted.

The Selective Nature of Our Outrage

The double standard is impossible to miss. When violence erupts from the right, our cultural institutions respond with swift, unified condemnation. Even conservative leaders rush to distance themselves from it, and many conservative commentators will denounce it. Remember how quickly many Republican figureheads denounced the January 6 Capitol riot?

"Those storming the Capitol need to stop NOW. The Constitution protects peaceful protest, but violence-from Left or Right- is ALWAYS wrong. And those involved in lawlessness must be prosecuted & brought to justice."
-Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), January 6, 2021

"Everyone has a right to peacefully protest. No one has a right to commit violence. What happened today at the Capitol is disgraceful and un-American. It is not what our country stands for."
-Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), January 6, 2021

"These actions at the U.S. Capitol by protestors are truly despicable and unacceptable. While I am safe and sheltering in place, these protests are prohibiting us from doing our constitutional duty. I condemn them in the strongest possible terms."
-Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), January 6, 2021

"Violence is always unacceptable. Even when passions run high. Anyone engaged in violence – especially against law enforcement – should be fully prosecuted."
-Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), January 6, 2021

Yet when violence emerges from the left—property destruction during protests, campus harassment, or attacks on corporate symbols—the response feels fragmented and tepid. Media coverage often frames it within a broader narrative of social justice or resistance to systemic oppression.

During the 2020 BLM protests, I watched major news outlets prioritize coverage of the underlying grievances rather than focusing on condemning the looting and arson that left some neighborhoods in ruins. And we can never forget the infamous CNN chyron "fiery but mostly peaceful after police shooting" while businesses burned in the background.

I am not imagining this, an analysis by AllSides confirmed it: right-leaning media called them “riots,” while left-leaning ones whispered “protests.”

Want to keep reading? Paid subscribers get this full article now—it will be free to everyone in a week! So, if you have zero chill, upgrade for early access and exclusive goodies.

Nazis vs. Saints

While scrolling through social media coverage of recent events, I came across images comparing Trump and Elon Musk to Nazis. This struck me, especially given how the left, along with many Americans, has justified or even celebrated the idea of harming Nazis, who are widely regarded as the epitome of evil. Adding to my unease, I saw a sign glorifying alleged assassin Luigi Mangione—the man accused of assassinating United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson outside a Manhattan hotel in December 2024 — as a saint, an unsettling normalization of both violence and selective glorification.

Even more disturbing is the news that a musical about Mangione has debuted in San Francisco. "Luigi the Musical," described as "a story of love, murder and hash browns," has already sold out five shows at the Taylor Street Theatre before its June premiere. According to reports, this "wildly irreverent, razor-sharp comedy" portrays Mangione as an "alleged corporate assassin turned accidental folk hero." While the production claims it's "not a celebration of violence," the very existence of a musical comedy about an accused assassin whose victim's body is barely cold demonstrates how normalized political violence has become in certain circles.

The discourse online is no better, especially when scrolling through TikTok, revolves around justifications for this kind of language. Comments frequently suggest that supporting Trump or Musk somehow invites or deserves a violent response. This casual acceptance of threatening language against political figures—but only certain political figures—reveals a troubling double standard.

The Political Response: Silence and Deflection

What makes this rising "assassin culture" even more concerning is how Democratic leaders respond when confronted about it. When Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was questioned by Fox News about whether Democrats' inflammatory rhetoric against Elon Musk had any connection to the violent attacks against Tesla owners and dealerships, her response was telling. Rather than condemning the violence or acknowledging any potential connection, she deflected, saying, "Yeah, I mean, again, I've seen Republicans call me communist and that I hate this country," before trailing off.

When further pressed whether she still owns the Tesla Model 3 she purchased in 2020, she declined to answer, citing "security reasons." This from the same representative who has repeatedly labeled Musk a "leech on the public" and criticized him extensively on social media. The unwillingness to condemn violence—or even acknowledge the possibility that labeling political opponents as "fascists" and "threats to democracy" might contribute to attacks—speaks volumes about how normalized this kind of political violence has become.

Equally unsettling was Minnesota Governor Tim Walz's public celebration of Tesla's stock decline at a Wisconsin town hall in March 2025. "I added Tesla to it to give me a little boost during the day — $225 and dropping," Walz told the cheering crowd, adding that Tesla owners should "take dental floss and pull the Tesla thing off" their vehicles. This tasteless gloating came despite the fact that Minnesota's state pension fund held 1.6 million shares of Tesla stock—essentially cheering for his own constituents' retirement funds to lose value. When criticized, Walz later claimed his comments were "just a joke" and that critics "have no sense of humor," dismissing legitimate concerns about his rhetoric in the midst of ongoing Tesla vandalism nationwide.

Perhaps most alarming was Illinois Governor JB Pritzker's speech in New Hampshire just last week, where he explicitly called for mass protests and declared that Republicans must be deprived of peace. "Never before in my life have I called for mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption. But I am now," Pritzker told the crowd at the New Hampshire Democratic Party's annual fundraising dinner. "These Republicans cannot know a moment of peace. They must understand that we will fight their cruelty with every megaphone and microphone that we have."

Given the recent pattern of leftist protests descending into violence—from the BLM riots to the Tesla showroom attacks to the swatting campaigns against conservative voices—such rhetoric from a sitting governor feels particularly dangerous.

When Pritzker later defended his comments, claiming "peaceful protest is what I'm talking about," it rang hollow to those who have watched progressive demonstrations repeatedly turn violent. When elected officials who should be promoting civil discourse instead suggest their political opponents don't deserve peace, we've crossed a line that historically precedes widespread political violence.

The Digital Extension of Violence: Swatting Conservative Voices

The rising violence targeting conservatives isn't limited to physical attacks—it's extended into their private homes through a dangerous tactic known as "swatting." Just last week, a video by conservative commentator Joe Pangs described his terrifying experience: armed police storming their home at 2 a.m., family members awakened in terror, all because someone had called in a false emergency.

For those unfamiliar with swatting, it's a particularly malicious form of harassment where someone makes a false emergency call—reporting a hostage situation, bomb threat, or active shooter—to provoke a heavily armed police response at an innocent person's home. The name originates from SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) teams that typically respond to such high-risk calls.

The consequences can be deadly. In 2017, Andrew Finch, a 28-year-old father in Kansas, was killed by police responding to a false emergency call. In 2020, a 60-year-old Tennessee man suffered a fatal heart attack during a swatting incident. Each call costs cities around $10,000 in resources and puts both victims and officers in needless danger.

What's especially troubling is how swatting has increasingly targeted conservative commentators since early 2025. FBI Director Kash Patel announced an investigation after a spike in incidents. Larry Taunton, a conservative influencer with over 177,000 followers on X, was swatted at his Alabama home around 1 a.m. on a Sunday when a caller claimed "three men in hoodies were executing everybody," leading to police arriving with guns drawn. The same night, conservative activists Erin Derham and Mat Van Swol in North Carolina faced a similar ordeal.

Infowars host Chase Geiser was also targeted, with 6 to 8 armed officers calling him outside. He was then handcuffed because someone had called to report that Geiser was threatening to kill his family. Surprisingly, it even made its way to legacy media when CNN reported at least a dozen such incidents in two weeks, almost all targeting Trump supporters who had interacted with Elon Musk on social media.

The timing of these attacks—coinciding with the Tesla vandalism—suggests a coordinated escalation of left-leaning violent political activism. Yet the cultural response has been noticeably muted. No prime-time specials on the dangers of swatting. No widespread condemnation from progressive leaders. Just another example of how political violence becomes more acceptable when directed at the "right" targets.

The intimidation campaign reached a disturbing new level in March 2025 with the creation of "Dogequest," a website that published the personal information of thousands of Tesla owners across the country. The site displayed names, addresses, and phone numbers of Tesla owners on an interactive map, complete with a Molotov cocktail cursor, and offered to remove individuals from the database only if they provided proof they had sold their Tesla. The website claimed to "empower creative expressions of protest" against Musk and DOGE, effectively creating a target list for vandals and harassers. Despite this clear act of intimidation occurring at the same time physical attacks on Tesla properties in at least nine states, the response from Democratic leaders has been tellingly muted.

The Evidence We Can't Ignore

Rising Political Violence

The data points to a worrying escalation. The 2025 FBI and Department of Homeland Security report highlights an increased risk of politically motivated violence across ideological spectrums. While the report does not specify which side of the political divide is becoming more violent, it identifies domestic violent extremists (DVEs) as a growing threat.

Their motivations range from anti-government grievances and racial or gender-related ideologies to conspiracy theories and partisan policy disagreements. These trends underscore the rise of threats targeting ethnic and religious minorities, government officials, ideological opponents, and election infrastructure. Online forums have become breeding grounds for calls to violence on divisive issues like immigration, abortion rights, and LGBTQIA+ topics, reflecting the broader surge in politically motivated extremism.

Assassination Attempts and Threats

The most visible examples of this escalating political violence are the assassination attempts against Trump. Beyond the widely reported shooting in Butler, Pennsylvania, and the attempt while he was golfing at Mar-a-Lago, there have been additional documented plots against his life. A Wisconsin teenager murdered his parents to fund an assassination attempt against Trump. In April, a Pennsylvania man was arrested for threatening both Trump and Musk on YouTube.

Campus Antisemitism Crisis

On university campuses, the situation has deteriorated rapidly. Harassment related to the Israel-Gaza conflict has targeted Jewish students, with reports indicating a sharp increase in antisemitic incidents since October 2023.

Columbia University faced federal scrutiny in early 2025 for failing to protect Jewish students, with documented reports of assaults and threats; new policy changes were implemented amid a "climate of fear" described by students, and the university was criticized for not holding pro-terror groups accountable for widespread antisemitism.

The problem has reached such a breaking point that Harvard University recently faced unprecedented consequences. Following months of criticism and investigation, the Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in federal funding to Harvard, citing the university’s failure to address antisemitism and concerns over its DEI policies adequately. Harvard’s administration was criticized for slow-walking its investigative report on campus antisemitism and not taking decisive action against the harassment of Jewish students. In response, Harvard released a 300-page report in April 2025 documenting pervasive antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment on campus and outlining recommendations for reform.

Police patrol as workers clean up anti-Israel graffiti at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) campus after police evicted pro-Palestinian protesters, May 2, 2024. (Frederic J. Brown/AFP)

Federal Intervention at Multiple Universities

In December 2024, the U.S. Department of Education resolved nine antisemitism and Islamophobia-related civil rights complaints against five University of California campuses. Six of these complaints involved harassment against Jewish and Israeli students, while three addressed discrimination against Muslim and Palestinian students. The Department's Office for Civil Rights found that the universities "appear not to have responded promptly or effectively" to allegations of harassment, highlighting the systemic nature of the problem. As part of the settlement, the UC system agreed to annual Title VI training, regular campus climate assessments, and improved reporting procedures.

These represent the most significant federal interventions into a university’s handling of discrimination, underscoring the severity of the situation and the national debate over university governance, antisemitism, and academic freedom.

Political Silence

However, what disturbs me most is the silence from those who should be speaking out. While the Biden administration took steps against antisemitism during their term, over 20 Democrats voted against a House resolution condemning campus antisemitism in November 2023, and Senator Bernie Sanders blocked a similar Senate resolution in May 2024. The lack of uniform condemnation speaks volumes.

The Structural Differences We Overlook

As I have been researching this article, a clear pattern of political violence takes shape from both ends of the spectrum, and the differences are striking. Left-wing violence, such as during BLM protests or these recent Tesla showroom attacks, typically occurs in group settings and focuses on property damage. Right-wing violence, like mass shootings or assassination attempts, is usually carried out by lone actors or small groups and tends to be more lethal, targeting individuals.

This distinction matters—not to excuse either form, but to understand how they manifest and spread because the mob mentality behind left-wing violence creates a different kind of threat: one where individuals feel absolved of personal responsibility within the anonymity of a crowd.

A Culture of Justification

What enables this asymmetric response to violence? I believe it's our increasing tendency to judge actions based not on principles but on politics.

Several factors contribute to this difference in cultural pressure. Right-wing violence carries the baggage of historical atrocities like Nazism, making its condemnation a moral imperative.

Photo by Soviet Artefacts on Unsplash

Left-wing violence, often tied to progressive causes, lacks a similarly vilified historical anchor in the Western consciousness. Let’s be real—authoritarian regimes like Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China, and Pol Pot’s Cambodia were responsible for tens of millions of deaths, yet these atrocities are rarely invoked with the same immediacy when discussing modern progressive movements. It’s a weird imbalance—left-wing extremism sometimes gets downplayed or even romanticized in certain intellectual circles, while right-wing violence is almost universally and immediately condemned, often with good reason.

This disparity in perception becomes clearer when you look at cultural symbols. Take the raised fist or Che Guevara, for instance. He’s become an iconic figure—his face splashed across T-shirts and posters, especially among young people drawn to his image as a rebel. But Guevara wasn’t just a symbol of resistance; as a key player in Fidel Castro’s Cuba, he helped enforce harsh policies, including executions and suppression of dissent. To the left, he represents the fight against imperialism, but to the descendants of his victims, he’s a stark reminder of the oppressive tactics of the Cuban regime.

How can one figure be seen in such opposing ways? It highlights a broader issue in how we interpret political symbols, often glossing over inconvenient parts of the story based on our cultural lens.

This selective memory ties into a larger pattern. Political extremism, no matter the ideology, has caused immense suffering. Right-wing violence is frequently tied to hate-based actions that spark immediate collective outrage—and rightfully so in many cases. But left-wing violence, even when just as deadly, is framed as somehow more noble because it is tied to idealistic goals—the ends justify the means—a dangerous view especially when historical context is stripped away.

And, what could be more noble than the opportunity to rid the world of a future Hitler? Daily we hear condemnation and comparisons to Nazis, but the tragedies of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot deserve to be just as front-and-center in our conversations as any other mass atrocities.

This imbalance is hard to miss when it permeates our cultural institutions—like the media, schools, and the arts—which tend to skew left ideologically and frame left-wing actions and ideology, even when violent, as sympathetic because they are advancing shared “virtuous” values.

At the end of the day, we need an honest, balanced take on history—one that calls out all forms of violence and oppression, no matter which side of the political spectrum they come from. This isn’t just about pointing fingers; it’s about learning from the past to avoid repeating it.

The Challenge of Data Interpretation

During the Biden years, we heard constantly about the threat of right-wing extremism. But even those claims deserve scrutiny. A 2020 Business Insider analysis examined ADL statistics from 2009–2018 and found only 58% of the 414 extremist incidents and 56% of the 426 killings met criteria for attempted violence by perpetrators with verifiable extremist beliefs against marginalized groups. For right-wing extremism specifically, out of 300 incidents identified by the ADL, only 131 met these criteria.

It looks like some of the data used to hype up right-wing extremism might've been padded by throwing in regular crimes committed by people with extremist connections. You've got to wonder if the ADL's research had built-in biases that made right-wing groups look worse while downplaying left-wing extremism. With left-leaning political violence clearly on the rise, we really need better, more objective research instead of studies that seem designed to confirm what people already believe. When you see what's happening these days—Tesla attacks, harassment on college campuses, people trying to assassinate politicians, conservatives getting swatted—we need to be just as tough in how we label and deal with left-wing violence. Surely it's not asking too much to be consistent in how we approach something this important.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Reports from around the country show how conservative media personalities are dealing with an increasingly threatening environment. According to the 2024 International Women's Media Foundation report, journalists—including those with conservative viewpoints—are taking various protective steps by installing security systems, altering daily routines, and taking protective measures to ensure safety. Many have adopted heightened precautions, some reporting the need to conduct nightly property checks to feel secure at home.

Here we are, indeed. As I write this, I am scrolling my X feed, and stumble on yet another post by Defiant L with a video of a woman (I assume) saying that "someone just needs to do it." If "do it" isn’t clear, a quick scroll of her social media account clarifies any doubt. There was a time when such rhetoric would have been universally condemned. Today, it barely raises an eyebrow.

This shift in our cultural standards should worry us all, regardless of where we stand politically. When we accept calls for violence against those with different views, we undermine democratic conversation. Applying inconsistent standards to violent acts based on who commits them means we're choosing tribal loyalty over principles.

The "assassin culture" I'm talking about goes beyond actual attempts on lives—it's about making it seem normal to view political opponents as fair targets for violence. It's how our language subtly changes, turning "terrorists" into "activists" when we support their causes. It's accepting that conservatives must worry about armed police raids triggered by false reports.

If nonviolence truly matters to us as a principle rather than just a political weapon, we need to apply the same standards to all forms of political violence. We should question our own side when it crosses dangerous lines. We must understand that justifying violence against opponents creates a precedent that could affect anyone.

Finding our way back starts with being honest—about the growing problem of left-wing violence, about how selectively outraged we become, and about our shared duty to expect more from our leaders, media, and ourselves. If we don't, today's "assassin culture" will only produce more dangerous consequences tomorrow.

Thanks for being a paid subscriber! Loved this? Share with friends—they can join for early access and exclusives.