“Democrats own this, 100%.” That was the declaration from Representative Nancy Mace in the hours after Charlie Kirk was assassinated on a Utah campus. When pressed by reporters about Republican accountability for other shootings, she snapped back: “Are you kidding me? Some raging leftist lunatic put a bullet through [Kirk’s] neck, and you want to talk about Republicans right now? No!” The conclusion was swift, certain, and politically useful. It was also wrong.

As the investigation unfolded, the profile of the alleged shooter looked nothing like the “raging leftist” Mace had described. He was a young white man in his early twenties, from a rural MAGA family, steeped in gun culture and grievance politics. Even his grandmother confirmed that their family was “all MAGA.” This reality has not stopped figures like Mace from blaming Democrats, the left, or any community Kirk himself vilified. But the evidence points in another direction. It points to the right of right.

This hypocrisy was on full display when Mace’s rhetoric shifted. Before she knew the facts, she called for the death penalty, a favorite applause line in today’s Republican base. But when she realized the shooter was not trans, not an immigrant, not a person of color, her tune changed. Suddenly, she wanted forgiveness. Suddenly, she saw nuance. It was a revealing moment that underscored a pattern. When the violence can be pinned on the left, it is exploited without hesitation. When it originates from the right of right, it is explained away, excused, or even pardoned.

A Pattern Written in Numbers

The numbers leave little room for ambiguity. From 2014 to 2023, the Anti-Defamation League documented 442 people killed in extremist-related attacks in the United States. Of those, 336, or roughly 76 percent, were killed by right-wing extremists. The Government Accountability Office found similar results in its review of domestic terrorism, concluding that far-right actors committed about three-quarters of extremist murders in the years since 9/11. Independent academic research has confirmed these findings again and again.

The left of left does exist. There are anarchist collectives and radicals who occasionally engage in vandalism, sabotage, or isolated assaults. But the body count is not comparable. The infrastructure of violence, the organized networks, the ideological manifestos, and the online recruitment pipelines are overwhelmingly products of the right of right. These numbers are not partisan talking points. They are drawn from law enforcement agencies, watchdog organizations, and universities. Yet despite their consistency, the narrative in mainstream discourse often flips the script, treating leftist protests as existential threats while minimizing or excusing coordinated far-right violence.

The selective framing is political. It allows leaders to posture as tough on crime while avoiding accountability for the extremism within their own ranks. It allows television hosts to draw audiences by stoking fear of “antifa” while downplaying the armed militias that storm state capitols. It allows representatives like Mace to weaponize tragedy against Democrats without reckoning with the uncomfortable truth that the real threat sits much closer to home.

January 6 and the Culture of Excuse

If there was ever a moment when the right of right revealed itself openly, it was January 6, 2021. Thousands of Trump supporters descended on the Capitol, smashing windows, chanting for the Vice President’s hanging, and assaulting police officers. Five people died in the immediate aftermath. Legislators were rushed into secure rooms. The world watched in disbelief as the seat of American democracy was stormed not by foreign terrorists but by citizens radicalized by lies about a stolen election.

And yet the response from much of the Republican establishment was not condemnation. It was excuse-making. Donald Trump called the rioters patriots. Members of Congress referred to them as political prisoners. Right-wing media figures compared them to heroes of the American Revolution. The rewriting of January 6 became a litmus test for loyalty within the party. Trump cemented that loyalty on the first day of his second term when he pardoned participants in the attack. That single act told extremists everything they needed to hear: their violence would be rewarded.

When you contrast this with the treatment of nonviolent protesters on the left, the double standard becomes even clearer. Environmental activists chaining themselves to pipelines or students staging sit-ins face heavy charges, surveillance, and condemnation. But storming the Capitol, chanting for lynching, and sending lawmakers fleeing? That earns pardons, speeches of sympathy, and status as martyrs. The message is unmistakable. Violence is not condemned in principle. It is condemned selectively, based on who commits it and how it can be spun politically.

The Familiar Profile

The assassination of Charlie Kirk and the attempted assassination of Donald Trump highlight the growing danger of the right of right turning inward. Both shooters fit a profile that has become disturbingly familiar: young, white, male, from rural or conservative backgrounds, and steeped in grievance politics. These are not the demographics of leftist radicals. They are the demographic backbone of the right itself. And yet, within minutes of the attacks, politicians and commentators scrambled to externalize the blame. Antifa. Immigrants. Democrats. Black Lives Matter. Anything but the truth that the violence was coming from within.

This denial reached surreal heights when the governor of Utah held his press conference after the Kirk assassination. He admitted that he had been praying the shooter was from another country and not “one of our own.” That prayer revealed the heart of the problem. Leaders would rather imagine a foreign enemy than confront the domestic reality. They would rather wish away the facts than admit that the radicalization happening in rural towns, online forums, and conservative households is fueling the bloodshed.

Ideological Roots

The right of right is not simply a collection of angry young men. It is an ecosystem built on ideological infrastructure. One pillar is the Great Replacement theory, which claims that white populations are being deliberately replaced by immigrants. This conspiracy inspired mass shooters in Christchurch, El Paso, and Buffalo. It has also been echoed on mainstream television by figures like Tucker Carlson and repeated at Republican rallies. Charlie Kirk himself invoked versions of it. When killers cite the same ideas, it is not coincidence. It is the direct line from rhetoric to violence.

Another pillar is Christian nationalism, which insists that America should be governed by and for Christians, often defined narrowly as white, conservative Christians. Nick Fuentes, leader of the Groypers, has built a movement around this ideology. He openly calls for authoritarian rule, praises dictators, and denies the Holocaust. Fuentes specifically turned his fire on Charlie Kirk in recent weeks, mocking him for being wealthy, holier than thou, and even for observing the Sabbath. Current indications from the bullet casing preliminary analysis in Utah even suggested that the alleged shooter was a Groyper, linking the act of violence directly back to that faction. That feud underscores a critical point: the right of right is not only a threat to Democrats. It is increasingly turning on its own leaders, punishing them for any hint of moderation or perceived impurity.

Militia culture provides the final piece. From the Michigan plot to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer to armed demonstrations at state capitols, militia groups have mainstreamed the idea that political disputes can be resolved through intimidation and force. They see themselves as heirs of the Minutemen but their targets are fellow Americans, elected officials, and democratic institutions. January 6 was a high-water mark, but it was not the end. The culture persists, reinforced by leaders who wink at extremism while pleading innocence when violence breaks out.

Media’s Role

The media is not a neutral observer in this story. By firing MSNBC analyst Matthew Dowd for suggesting that Kirk’s rhetoric played a role in his assassination, the network signaled that certain truths are too dangerous to speak aloud. This was not just about one employee. It was about a broader pattern. Media outlets amplify narratives of leftist danger while treading lightly around right-wing violence. They analyze every broken window at a Black Lives Matter protest but hesitate to connect the dots between right-wing rhetoric and right-wing murder. This imbalance does not just distort public understanding. It protects the right of right from scrutiny and accountability.

The result is a vacuum of honesty. Analysts know the numbers. Reporters see the patterns. But the public is fed a narrative of “balance” as though the threats are equal, as though the violence is symmetrical. It is not. The right of right is responsible for the overwhelming majority of extremist killings in this country. Pretending otherwise leaves us unprepared for what comes next.

Breaking the Cycle

The only way to confront the right of right is with honesty. Leaders must stop excusing, minimizing, or redirecting blame. Violence must be condemned regardless of who commits it. Pardons must not be handed out as rewards for loyalty. Media outlets must stop silencing analysts who name uncomfortable truths. Communities must refuse to normalize rhetoric that treats empathy as weakness and cruelty as strength.

This is not about partisanship. It is about reality. The right of right is not fringe. It is not hypothetical. It is armed, organized, and increasingly confident. It has declared war not only on Democrats, immigrants, and marginalized communities but now on the very leaders who thought they could control it. The assassination of Charlie Kirk is not an isolated tragedy. It is a warning. The right of right is consuming its own, and if the pattern holds, it will not stop there.

The Bigger Picture

After Oklahoma City, there was a brief reckoning with right-wing extremism. After 9/11, the nation shifted almost entirely to foreign threats. That imbalance persists today. It is politically convenient to focus on others. It is politically dangerous to confront your own. But the evidence cannot be wished away. Each time we ignore it, the violence grows. Each time we excuse it, extremists become bolder. Each time leaders like Mace pivot from blame to forgiveness depending on the shooter’s identity, they signal that violence is negotiable.

We must face the truth. The right of right is the dominant source of political violence in America. It is emboldened by selective outrage, fueled by conspiracies, and protected by silence. Until we admit this, we are not just failing to stop the violence. We are inviting the next tragedy. And it will come, because patterns do not lie. They only repeat, unless we break them.

---

Julian Vasquez Heilig, Ph.D., is a nationally recognized education scholar, public intellectual, and media voice on issues of equity, democracy, and policy. His work has been featured in the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Education Week, and the Associated Press. He has provided expert commentary on CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, Al Jazeera, Univision, ABC, CBS, FOX. Through his widely read blog Cloaking Inequity and his LinkedIn newsletter Without Fear or Favor, Vasquez Heilig has reached millions of readers in over 200 countries, translating academic research into accessible insights for the public. His media presence consistently challenges misinformation, amplifies marginalized voices, and connects scholarship to urgent debates in education and democracy.