Podcast Summary: "Is JD Vance right about left-wing violence?"

Podcast: More or Less: Behind the Stats
Host: Tim Harford (BBC Radio 4)
Episode Date: September 20, 2025

Episode Overview

This episode investigates Vice President J.D. Vance's claim, made after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, that “most of the lunatics in American politics today are proud members of the far left.” Tim Harford and the More or Less team dive into polling data, long-term trends, and expert opinion to evaluate whether left-wing political violence is statistically more prevalent than right-wing violence in the U.S., and how political violence should be assessed in the first place.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. JD Vance's Claim and What It Means

• Context: In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's murder, J.D. Vance calls for unity but claims:
  “It is a statistical fact that most of the lunatics in American politics today are proud members of the far left.” (02:13)
• The term "lunatics" is ambiguous; the team interprets it as referring to perpetrators of political violence.

2. YouGov Poll on Attitudes Toward Political Violence

• Claim Cited:
  “24% of self described, quote, very liberals believe it is acceptable to be happy about the death of a political opponent.” — J.D. Vance (03:18)
• Clarification:
  • 25% of "very liberal" respondents said political violence was sometimes justified; only 3% of "very conservative" agreed.
  • The majority on all sides still oppose political violence.
  • Context matters: the poll was conducted right after Kirk’s assassination and may reflect emotional responses, not deeply held beliefs.
  • Political climate and which party holds power also affect survey responses.

3. Historical Data on Political Violence

• Cato Institute Data (1975–2025):
  • Total deaths: 3,599 from politically motivated attacks.
  • Perpetrators:
    • Left-wing: 2%
    • Right-wing: 11%
    • Islamist: 87% (Includes 9/11) (05:08)
  • Excluding 9/11:
    • Left-wing: 10%
    • Right-wing: 63% (05:43)
• Recent Trends (since 2020):
  • Left-wing perpetrators: 18 deaths (22%)
  • Right-wing perpetrators: 44 deaths (54%)
  • Shows more left-wing violence in recent years, but right-wing violence remains higher.

4. Complexity in Defining and Identifying Political Violence

• Motivation and ideology are often unclear; many perpetrators are not easily categorized.
• Example:
  • John Hinckley Jr.'s attempted assassination of Reagan was motivated by obsession with Jodie Foster, not politics (07:10).
  • Other recent acts involved assailants with mental health issues or unfocused ideologies.

5. Expert Opinions on Political Violence & Definitions

• Sean Westwood (Dartmouth):
  • Modern political violence is less ideological than in the 60s–70s, often perpetrated by socially isolated individuals (06:40, 08:54).
  • Recent high-profile attacks (e.g. Paul Pelosi, Josh Shapiro, Donald Trump) often lack clear political motivations.
• Robert Pape (University of Chicago):
  • No unified government definition of political violence, making cross-study comparisons tough (07:45).
  • Trends:
    • 1960s: more left-wing violence
    • 1970s–2018: more right-wing violence
    • Since 2019/2021: balanced between right and left (08:15)

6. Challenges in Assigning Motive and Ideology

• Political violence spans a spectrum from public disorder to murder, often with ambiguous motives.
• Classification depends on definitions used by researchers and the political context.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• J.D. Vance:
  "It is a statistical fact that most of the lunatics in American politics today are proud members of the far left." (02:13)
• Lizzie McNeil:
  "25% of people defined as very liberal in the survey said that political violence was sometimes justified, compared to 3% for people defined as very conservative." (03:29) "The timing of these questions has a big effect on the answers. For example, who's in power matters hugely." (03:56)
• Tim Harford:
  "But most of the violence is on the left. Okay, interesting. Is it?" (05:02)
• Sean Westwood:
  "It's not clear that a lot of the folks who are committing political violence have any kind of ideology. Most of these folks are isolated, on the fringes of society with incoherent ideological views." (06:40)
• Robert Pape:
  "In America, political violence came mainly from the left. From the 70s to about 2018, 19, it came very heavily from the right. And since about 2019, you could date 2021, it has been far more balanced." (08:15)
• Lizzie McNeil:
  "Political violence is an incredibly ambiguous term that covers a whole host of different crimes, from public disorder to murder. That, coupled with the fact that motive is often unclear and political ideology is cited more than actual political allegiance, makes this question a very difficult one to answer." (09:28)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 01:07 – Introduction and context: Charlie Kirk’s assassination and JD Vance’s statement
• 03:18 – Discussion of YouGov poll about political violence attitudes
• 05:08 – Review of historical death statistics (Cato Institute)
• 06:40 – Sean Westwood on the changing nature of political violence
• 07:45 – Robert Pape on definitional issues and trends
• 08:54 – Recent violent incidents and the complexity of assigning motivation
• 09:28 – Summing up: ambiguity in defining and measuring political violence

Conclusion

The episode concludes that while some polls and recent data suggest an uptick in left-wing violence, longer-term and more comprehensive datasets indicate that right-wing violence has historically been more deadly in the U.S., especially post-1970s. The hosts and experts agree that understanding political violence is fraught with definitional challenges, ambiguous motives, and methodological issues, making simplistic partisan claims like JD Vance’s highly questionable.

Key Takeaway:
There is no simple statistical answer—political violence is multifaceted, influenced by context, definitions, and ambiguous motives, and the data does not support the blanket assertion that most political violence comes from the far left.