Left-wing rhetoric under renewed scrutiny as a string of incidents spurs debate on political violence

A New York Post opinion column argues that left-wing denials of political violence have become a sickly pattern after more than a decade of stoking violence against the right. The piece asserts that, even amid a series of high-profile incidents, commentators and political figures have resisted attributing violence to left-wing currents, instead insisting the actions belong to some other faction and broadcasting a narrative that disputes, downplays, or confuses the political alignment of perpetrators.

The column foregrounds two recent flashpoints—the Dallas shooting and the earlier controversy around comments about a supposed left-wing link to a separate attack—claiming that the discourse in those hours followed a familiar script. It says CNN invited analysts who argued the shooter did not appear to be left-leaning, while Democratic commentators on social media dismissed or criticized early characterizations of the assailant as left-wing. The author also cites discussions on programs like Morning Joe that, in the columnist’s view, highlighted studies they say overstate right-wing violence while ignoring or discounting debunked premises associated with the Cato Institute, the Anti-Defamation League, and others. A central target is public figures who, the piece says, hurried to label the Kirk case as evidence of far-right influence before all the facts were settled. The column criticizes what it describes as a confident assertion by Heather Cox Richardson about Kirk’s killer embracing the far right, and it notes the period’s fallout, including Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension and the ensuing debate over public accountability for such statements.

Beyond those two episodes, the column links a broader pattern of violence and intimidation it says has encroached on public life. In Nashua, New Hampshire, an armed man at a wedding shouted “Free Palestine” and fired toward a crowd, killing one guest. In Salt Lake City, Utah, two men — Adeeb Nasir, 58, and Adil Justice Ahmed Nasir, 31 — were arrested after allegedly placing an incendiary device beneath a Fox-13 news van in the aftermath of the Kirk incident. The column portrays these cases as evidence that heated rhetoric has translated into real-world danger, and it frames the fallout from Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension as part of a broader pattern in which media personalities are drawn into political crossfire.

The piece also revisits the case of Nicholas Roske, who in 2022 allegedly plotted to kill Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The author notes that Roske traveled to residences associated with several justices before reconsidering the plan, a trajectory the column says was illuminated by public disclosures of conservative justices’ home addresses during debates over the Dobbs decision. It adds that the information helped fuel a narrative of left-wing targeting, tying the disclosures to a wider, ongoing controversy over political intimidation. The author further cites Joshua Jahn, described as having monitored ICE agents via publicly available online resources that track law-enforcement movements in U.S. cities. In the columnist’s view, this pattern shows a culture in which some online activity and on-the-ground tactics align with efforts to disrupt enforcement operations.

A YouGov poll is referenced to illustrate perceived biases in how the Kirk case is understood. The column cites that three times as many liberals believed Kirk’s killer was a right-wing actor rather than recognizing him as left-wing, framing the result as evidence of a broader communication gap between political actors and the public. In this view, outrages such as the near-assassination attempt on President Donald Trump and the Kirk shooting are cited as moments that should have prompted more evenhanded scrutiny of rhetoric on all sides. The piece quotes Governor Gavin Newsom and other prominent figures as calling for tone adjustments on both sides, while suggesting that the rhetoric often resumes a more confrontational pace almost immediately after such incidents, exacerbating the cycle of suspicion and backlash.

The column argues that a decade or two of political realignment has shifted progressives away from the center on immigration, crime, gender ideology, and racial equity, while those same voices embraced the idea that only dark fascist conspiracies stood in the way of their preferred path. It contends that some on the left have come to view speech that disagrees with them as an actual form of violence, a perception the author says discourages engagement and fosters mutual deceptions. The piece contends that leaders on the left, fearing losses at the ballot box, have often refrained from calling out violence within their own ranks, thereby enabling a cascade of incidents and public disputes that worsen polarization and risk.

In closing, the author asserts that without frank acknowledgment from political and media leaders about the violence associated with rhetoric on all sides, the cycle will persist and potentially deepen, threatening the fabric of national life. The column encourages accountability across the political spectrum and emphasizes the need for discourse that distinguishes legitimate disagreement from violent acts or calls to violence, even as it frames the current dynamic as a warning about the direction of U.S. politics.

The discussion touches a larger national debate about how to interpret violence linked to political passions. While the incidents cited are real and specific, the piece situates them within a contested frame about accountability, media responsibility, and the boundaries of political rhetoric. Readers are reminded that the events described come with divergent interpretations and that the broader question of how to address political violence remains both urgent and unresolved across the political spectrum.