fbpx

Do Democrats Have an Issue with Political Violence?

Since 2020, the Democrats have exhibited a highly selective desire to prosecute political violence that aligns with their own goals and objectives.
[additional-authors]
July 24, 2024
Violence at demonstrations at The City College Of New York (CUNY) on April 30, 2024 (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

In the hours and days following the attempted assassination of former president Donald Trump, the internet was awash with statements from his political enemies on the left condemning the shooting. Beyond wishing him a speedy recovery, the most common message from Democrat politicians was a condemnation of “political violence” — and a statement that politically motivated violence has no place in America. Even the most vocal Trump haters, like Senator Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, joined the chorus with their own denunciations. 

Noble, right? Well, until you zoom out and remember that this is the same party that has turned a blind eye to politically motivated violence for the past four years. Since 2020, the Democrats have exhibited a highly selective desire to prosecute political violence that aligns with their own goals and objectives. That year, the same American left that was so moved by individual instances of Trump supporters committing crimes or the white supremacist march in Charlottesville suddenly went mute when violent mobs descended upon American cities in June, looting buildings, destroying countless businesses, stealing property, and plunging the country into an extended period of crime-filled unrest. In that instance, political violence was acceptable, deemed by the left as the “language of the unheard” and a reasonable response to “the frustration of centuries of oppression.” 

That summer heralded in the Democratic approach to political violence that still exists in large swathes of the left to this day, as we have also seen over the past nine months since the attacks in Israel. If the left believes there is “no place for political violence” in America, as politicians like AOC claim, why have they ceded so much space to pro-Palestinian activists who regularly chant “From the River to the Sea” or openly call for “Intifada Revolution?” These slogans, which are direct calls for violent incitement, are not fringe beliefs held by a tiny portion of Democrats — they have echoed through the streets of blue cities across America, have been chanted by college students praised by Bernie Sanders as “peaceful demonstrators,” and were even described as an “aspirational call for freedom and human rights” by sitting congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.). 

On top of that, in blue jurisdictions, those who commit this selective group of politically motivated crimes receive immunity. Take the summer of 2020, when countless looters in New York City were caught on tape with their faces visible and hundreds were arrested. One year later, a review of NYPD data showed that most of the cases were dismissed by local district attorneys and courts, and that most of the actual convictions were for charges like trespassing that carried no jail time. Same applies to the Hamas lovers currently intimidating Jews in blue American cities — just weeks before the Trump shooting, violent Palestinian protesters who menaced a synagogue in Los Angeles, leaving several Jewish members bloodied, escaped with only one arrest. This is the rule, not the exception, for pro-Palestinian rallies in Democratic areas—the threatening mobs are rarely prosecuted, the foreign ringleaders inciting violence are never deported, and the violence is downplayed or downright ignored.

This is the rule, not the exception, for pro-Palestinian rallies in Democratic areas — the threatening mobs are rarely prosecuted, the foreign ringleaders inciting violence are never deported, and the violence is downplayed or downright ignored. 

The examples of hypocrisy are endless, but one major takeaway should be clear: do not evaluate Democrats by their hasty claims that “political violence is never acceptable.” Evaluate them by their actions — their refusal to condemn far-left incitement, their unwillingness to jail and prosecute perpetrators of left-wing political violence, their embrace of a menacing atmosphere of street unrest when it serves their political bottom lines. Once you look past their half-baked lip service, their views on the matter are crystal clear: Democrats not only have no issue with the right kind of political violence, they are also a major reason why it abounds in America today.


Dr. Sheila Nazarian is a Los Angeles physician whose family escaped to America from Iran. She stars in the Emmy-nominated Netflix series “Skin Decision: Before and After.“

Did you enjoy this article?
You'll love our roundtable.

Editor's Picks

Latest Articles

A Bisl Torah — All Over Again

Repenting includes examining and admitting our mistakes. Seeking forgiveness. Determining to do better. Being better. Every single day.

Hanging Out at the Jewish American Summit

Among the speakers, Adam Milstein, a real estate investor, philanthropist and co-founder of the fast-growing Impact Forum, urged attendees to frame antisemitism as an American issue and not just a Jewish issue.

A Festive French Roast

One of my favorite things to cook for the Jewish holidays is a beautiful French roast. It’s so very festive and is perfect to feed a hungry crowd.

The Genius of the Marx Brothers

Like the greatest satirists, such as Jonathan Swift and Mark Twain, they chose comedy over accusation to mock the folly of society and add levity to dark times. But their aim was not levity alone.

AKLA Rises

From a Local Experiment to a National Program: AKLA Expands Its Vision for Jewish Teens

Better Kisser Than a Cook

Sometimes love arrives ahead of you, in spite of you. Cooking slowly became a way of being there for the people I love. A wordless language that says: I see you. I hear you. You’re worth the onion-chopping.

Israel’s Brain-Drain Debate Is Asking the Wrong Question

If an experienced professional with rare expertise leaves Israel, the impact cannot be understood simply by adding another person to a brain-drain statistic. The more relevant question is how many people with comparable experience remain, how essential that expertise is and how easily it can be rebuilt.

More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.