“Political extremism and violence are not confined to either side of the political spectrum in the United States,” emphasizes James M. Curry, political scientist at the University of Notre Dame.
That’s borne out in recent U.S. history: Dylann Roof (2015 Charleston church shooting), James Alex Fields Jr. (2017 Charlottesville car attack), Cesar Sayoc (2018 mail-bombs), Robert Bowers (2018 Tree of Life synagogue shooting), Patrick Crusius (2019 El Paso Walmart massacre), David DePape (2022 attack on Pelosi home), and Vance Boelter (2025 Minneapolis assassinations), all appeared to be motivated, in part, by right-wing ideologies hostile to liberals (sometimes mixed with racial hatred and anti-government rhetoric).
In the other direction, Bill Ayers and Kathy Boudin (1960s-70s Weather Underground bombings), James T. Hodgkinson (2017 Congressional baseball shooter), Michael Reinoehl (2020 Portland shooting), Thomas Matthew Crooks and Ryan Wesley Routh (2024 attempted Trump assassins) and Tyler Robinson (Charlie Kirk shooter) all appeared to be motivated, in part, by left-wing ideologies hostile to conservatives (mixed in some cases with anti-imperialist and anti-authoritarian grievances).
“Recent research finds no correlation between being a Democrat or Republican, or a liberal or conservative, and supporting political violence as an ‘acceptable’ political act,” Curry tells Deseret News — pointing instead to a set of common patterns and traits characterizing radicalization that can show up on either side of the political spectrum.
So what are these common patterns? While more is known about what leads groups to radicalize politically toward violence thanks to decades of study on the topic since 9/11, political scientist Austin J. Knuppe, director of the Heravi Peace Institute at Utah State University, says that less is known about the radicalization of lone-wolf individuals.
Nonetheless, some general patterns are discernible:
1. Losing trust in ordinary politics and mainstream institutions
Part of the process of political radicalization, according to scholars, includes individuals ceasing to believe in peaceful, democratic process, while turning decisively against historically-trusted mediating institutions such as courts, police and newspapers.
Israeli social scientist Charles Liebman wrote that institutions like religion often served to mediate and insulate against hostile forces in a way that mitigates and prevents extremism.
“Whereas ideology lives in an ideal world, institutions live in the real world,” writes Patrick Mason, Professor of Religious Studies and History at Utah State. “By this logic, the most dangerous people are those who subscribe to totalizing ideologies who are not part of large institutional receptacles and preservers of that ideology.”
While Mason adds it’s true that institutions often fall short, and can even accelerate harm in some cases, “when it comes to extremist violence, of the variant we are seeing far too often, it’s conducted by people who are isolated from those mediating, moderating institutions.”
2. Deepening isolation from counterbalancing relationships
In their analysis, “Mechanisms of Political Radicalization” scholars Clark McCauley and Sophia Moskalenko emphasize the role of isolation — where individuals cut off contact with others in a way that increases deepening extremism. That can include estrangement from family, friends and others more connected to traditional institutions.
“It’s common to say that shooters are isolated and alienated from society,” Mason writes in an email to Deseret News. “That’s true only in part,” he says, suggesting that these radicalized perpetrators are “often part of online communities (frequently video gamers), all of whom feel isolated and alienated.”
“From what? From mainstream institutions,” Mason explains. “It’s not that they don’t have community — it’s just that they’re part of a community predicated on alienation from institutions.”
3. Increasing trust in malign, cynical voices that stir up discontent
Accompanying this emotional estrangement from surrounding institutions is growing affinity for other voices these individuals do trust. For instance, criminal investigations into the dozen individuals mentioned earlier found evidence of prior trust placed in white-supremacist literature, conspiracy forums, and partisan media personalities (for the first group), and radical protest networks, Marxist/anti-imperialist texts, and anti-fascist rhetoric (for the second group).
4. Feeling belonging and purpose in a new cause
McCauley and Moskalenko’s analysis of “Mechanisms of Political Radicalization” highlights further radicalization taking place as small groups form around shared grievances and an us-versus-them outlook. As group members fraternize more and more exclusively together, they become even more extreme — forming emotional ties with other radicalized family, friends, or romantic partners.
Whatever cause unites these individuals provides a sense of meaning, purpose and in-group belonging. Compared with a sense of personal loss or insignificance they may have previously felt, scholar Arie Kruglanski notes how extremist ideology provides for solitary individuals a path to redemption and the regaining of meaning and honor — even a “quest for significance.”
In their 2014 text, The Psychology of Radicalization and Deradicalization, Kruglanski and colleagues write, “The need for significance … is so fundamental that people will kill and die for it.”
This quest is especially salient in Western places where people are not struggling to survive, Knuppe says, compared with poor areas, where basic physical deprivation may contribute to radicalization.
When perceived backlash happens to a cherished cause through the state or other authorities, that foments even more radicalization. Scholars describe a slippery slope, where individuals experience gradual escalation through small, seemingly low-cost commitments that lead to more aggressive, radical involvement.
5. Escalating anger and grievance
At the heart of so much political radicalization is the nursing of deep, festering grievances, where individuals ruminate about perceived threats and grating feelings of victimhood. This often involves a sincere belief that one’s group is under existential threat (e.g., “replacement,” “takeover,” “corruption”).
Scholar Ted Gurr described a perceived gap between the goods, conditions, and status an individual feels rightfully entitled to, compared with what someone thinks they can attain.
“As this perceived gap grows,” USU political scientist Damon Cann explains, “individuals experience frustration and anger” to the point of considering violence — this, compared with most others who balance political disappointments against hope for continued change in the future.
Such grievances can be real or imagined, personal or collective — but are almost always framed by extremist leaders as part of a larger, glorious struggle. In addition to personal grievances where someone close to an individual is harmed or killed by an enemy, McCauley and Moskalenko describe “group grievance” as evoking solidarity with a community seen as oppressed.
6. Adopting dehumanizing views of political opposites
Closely tied with mounting frustration and grievance is the adoption of narratives portraying ideological opponents as somehow less than human. This is one of the clearest through-lines in radicalization research, with each of the aforementioned perpetrators adopting in different ways a rhetoric that cast those they disagreed with as less-than-human, existential threats, or vermin to be eliminated.
For instance, James Alex Fields Jr. consumed propaganda that cast Jews and minorities as “parasites,” while Robert Bowers referred to Jewish refugees as “invaders” bringing “filthy” outsiders into the country. Patrick Crusius described Hispanic immigrants as “invaders” who would “replace” white Americans, repeating a language of infestation and invasion that justified violence as a “defense” against a swarm. Dylann Roof also wrote that Black people were “stupid and violent,”
Cesar Sayoc depicted Democrats and media figures as traitors, criminals, and “enemies of America,” while David DePape blogged about Democrats as “liars,” “corrupt,” and part of a global conspiracy, casting Pelosi and others as almost demonic figures controlling the world. And Vance Boelter was immersed in rhetoric describing liberals and officials as “tyrants” and “traitors.”
Bill Ayers & Kathy Boudin referred to the U.S. government and military as “imperialist murderers,” while dehumanizing police and soldiers as “pigs.” And James T. Hodgkinson posted online about Republicans as “destroyers of democracy” and “traitors,” framing them as enemies of the people rather than opponents. Likewise Michael Reinoehl described right-wing protesters as “fascists,” much like Tyler Robinson who engraved the word “fascist” on bullet casings and wrote beforehand that “some hatred cannot be negotiated with”
These people took on an identity built around dehumanization and hatred of an out-group, as McCauley and Moskalenko highlight in their analysis. It’s a short step from dehumanizing narratives, of course, to outright justification of violence.
7. Everything magnified by digital distortion
It’s become well-known over the last decade how online echo chambers can intensify radicalization for individuals through “algorithmic amplification.” Research confirms that digital platforms can intensify isolation, heighten exposure to extreme voices, and accelerate anger cycles.
In 2021 testimony before the U.S. Congress, University of Washington scholar Kate Starbird stated, “Digital echo chambers and recommendation algorithms can accelerate radicalization by amplifying grievance, anger, and mistrust.”
Describing the impact of these algorithms, New York Times commentator Ezra Klein recently said, “Instead of being complex to one another, we become incomprehensible, almost unimaginable, to one another.“
In a day where the internet is so “all encompassing,” Knuppe emphasizes the impact of how “real life” and online imagery have increasingly “melted away.” Catalyzing this process, scholars say, are cues from media personalities, elite voices and foreign influence operations that play a role in signaling what’s acceptable, while amplifying anger, and giving extreme beliefs legitimacy.
“There is no single pathway to radicalization; there are many, and different people may travel by different routes to the same violent end,” concludes McCauley and Moskalenko.
Only some of these radicalized individuals become violent, obviously — with lives where these patterns are easier to identify. Stepping back from this smaller subset of individuals, it may be harder to identify escalating anger and grievance in ourselves, along with a troubling collective willingness to adopt dehumanizing narratives of our political opposites.