Polling Shows Republicans Genuinely Have No Idea What “Political Violence” Even Means

If the head of a political movement rises to power and then turns the military loose against their own citizens to quell unrest, or against the unarmed civilians of another country to achieve a political aim, would you define that as “political violence”?

According to an illuminating piece of recent polling, 89% of self-identified Democrats would answer yes. Military might, being the ultimate expression of state power, used against civilians for intimidation or to affect political change? Yeah, that’s textbook political violence, absolutely. But self-identified Republican respondents to the same poll? Only 34% of them believe that using the military against civilians constitutes political violence–an unbelievable 55 point gap in opinion between the left and right sides of the aisle. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a clearer indication of just how willing Republican voters are to embrace state violence, as long as they think it will be employed against the correct people … all while wailing and crying about the left’s supposed fomenting of political violence against them. The hypocrisy captured in these numbers is astounding.

Said numbers come courtesy of writers/political scientists Miles Kendrick and Brian Schaffner, who commissioned a recent YouGov survey to study the differences in how self-identified members of the Democratic and Republican parties in America approached the topic of political violence in the wake of the most recent, conspiracy-generating attempt on the life of President Donald Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. What they found is that the two sides are actually in close agreement … as long as “political violence” is narrowly defined as specifically punching a politician in the face. The moment one is meant to turn the slightest bit of critical thinking toward the exercise, however, the responses of the Republicans measured by the poll veer off into abject fantasy.

earlier this month @tufts.edu senior Miles Kendrick and I fielded a survey with @today.yougov.com to better understand what acts people think are political violence. there are some points of agreement & some clear differences of opinion. goodauthority.org/news/democra…

[image or embed]

— Brian Schaffner (@bfschaffner.bsky.social) Apr 27, 2026 at 2:07 PM

As mentioned, when the 2,000 YouGov survey participants were asked whether “physically assaulting a politician/official” was political violence, the responses were exactly alike: Both Democrats and Republicans agreed at a rate of 93% that this constituted political violence, although I’d certainly be curious to hear a rationale from that other 7% on either side. At least we can (mostly) all agree that rolling up on a pol and physically attacking them is indeed “violence.” That’s something, right?

Change the question, however, and the answers immediately begin to diverge. Some 90% of Democrats agree that “detaining/imprisoning for political reasons” is political violence, but only 77% of Republicans agreed. And the numbers just diverge more as you go: Whereas 95% of Democrats state that “armed attacks on protestors” constitutes political violence, only 68% of Republicans agreed. And then there’s that question about whether “using the military against civilians” constitutes political violence, which yielded the incredible 55 point gap in agreement: Democrats at 89% “yes,” and Republicans at just 34%.

One might be tempted to look at those numbers and simply conclude that Republican voters merely have a higher bar as to what should qualify as “violence” in general, but this isn’t the case. Instead, they just have a higher bar of what they’re willing to allow in the form of state violence against citizens or protestors, while simultaneously being much more eager to call something “political violence” if it’s being done by civilians and everyday people expressing constitutionally guaranteed rights of speech and expression. When the survey asked whether “praising/celebrating the death of a public figure” was itself “political violence,” 59% of Republicans agreed that it was, while only 40% of Democrats surveyed said the same. The difference was even more starkly illustrated by the question on “occupying public/private spaces in protest,” in which 56% of Republicans claimed that this activity–a famous form of nonviolent resistance–was in fact “political violence,” while only 26% of Democratic respondents agreed. Because there’s nothing more violent than a silent sit-in, right?

Just to reiterate: 56% of Republicans surveyed said that occupying a public space was “political violence,” while only 34% of the very same survey group thought “using the military against civilians” qualified. This suggests a group of millions of Republicans in this country exists who believe that “occupying a public space in protest” is a more heinous act than “using the military against civilians.” Truly some mind-boggling findings here.

The most consistent takeaway is the way these numbers illustrate something that is crystal clear to anyone making the slightest attempt to look at America’s political landscape with unbiased eyes: Republicans are the party that craves authoritarianism and the wielding of federal violence, despite their age-old claims to being the party of small and limited government, champions of personal freedom. They don’t support small government: If they did, they wouldn’t advocate for the ability of that government to constantly violate your civil rights while convincing you to willingly surrender the rights the Constitution grants us. And they certainly don’t support free speech: If they did, they would advocate for a person’s right to “celebrate the death of a public figure,” even if they disagreed with that person or if the sentiment was distasteful, and they sure as fuck wouldn’t call that celebration “violence” in and of itself. Call it a symptom of the killing of a public figure like Charlie Kirk, but this may have been the moment when the American right gave up on any semblance of “freedom of speech” as a core tenant and fully switched over into hunting and punishing wrongspeak in exactly the way they accuse the left of doing. “Cancel culture” is now the right’s domain–just look at their survey responses. They’re proud of it, just as a large percentage of them proudly say that it’s not political violence for government agents to attack protestors.

There’s little doubt that the root of it all is a successful brand of fearmongering, as instilled by the truly evil Stephen Millers of the world, which spreads a constant message to surrender to the “protection” that only an authoritarian government and its orange god-king can provide to you. How ironic, though, that such a sniveling brand of apologia should be adopted by the same people who are so often angrily waving their Gadsden flags, claiming to be worried about governmental overreach and intrusion into their lives. Ask those Republicans in a vacuum whether they want to give up their rights to the federal government, and they’ll incredulously insist that of course they wouldn’t. Tell them that they need to cheer on the stripping of civil liberties in order to effectively punish the big, bad “they,” a chosen enemy who is ready to be scapegoated for the downfall of America, on the other hand, and they all suddenly turn from the defiant snake into this fellow, begging to be squished by a jackbooted heel. Thankfully, Trump and co. are all too happy to oblige.