A Politico/Public First survey released this week found that nearly one in four Americans, 24%, say political violence can be justified in some circumstances, while 64% say it is never acceptable. The poll also found that more than one-third of Americans under age 45 endorse the idea that political violence can sometimes be warranted, and that 55% of respondents believe politically motivated violence in the United States will increase.
The survey’s main findings highlight a marked generational divide in attitudes toward the use of force for political ends. While a clear majority of adults overall reject political violence outright, younger age cohorts were notably more willing to countenance it. The detail that over one-third of those under 45 view political violence as at least sometimes justified is presented in the survey as a significant rise among younger voters compared with older cohorts, signaling a shift in how political conflict is perceived by a sizeable segment of the electorate.
Those results come at a moment when concern about the stability of American political life has been a recurring theme in public discourse. The survey’s finding that 55% of respondents expect politically motivated violence to increase reflects a rising public unease about the potential for escalation. That perception of worsening prospects for political safety may influence voter behavior, civic engagement and the priorities of elected officials and law enforcement, according to observers who point to the poll as evidence of a growing sense of risk.
Robert Pape, a political science professor at the University of Chicago whose research has examined political violence and radicalization, observed that support for political violence appears to be growing and becoming more mainstream. His assessment, included in the materials accompanying the survey findings, underscores an academic concern that shifts in public attitudes could normalize previously fringe views, changing the social and political environment in which debates over policy and protest take place.
The survey did not release in this summary a detailed breakdown of partisan or regional differences, nor did it attach demographic cross-tabs beyond age in the material provided. Still, pollsters and analysts generally view age-related patterns as an important indicator of how political norms may evolve over time: greater tolerance among younger cohorts can presage broader cultural and political shifts if those attitudes persist as cohorts age and assume positions of greater influence.
Public concern over the future trajectory of politically motivated violence could have practical implications. With a majority of respondents anticipating an increase in such violence, government agencies, law enforcement and civic institutions may face renewed pressure to adapt prevention and response strategies. Political leaders and community organizations could also confront heightened expectations to reduce polarization and bolster norms of nonviolent political engagement, though the survey summary does not specify whether respondents endorsed particular policy remedies or interventions.
What happens next will depend in part on how enduring the attitudes measured by the survey prove to be. Future polls and research will be closely watched for signs that the expressed willingness to justify political violence translates into broader political behavior or grows into organized action. For now, the Politico/Public First survey documents a moment in which a notable minority of Americans, especially younger adults, express openness to political violence and a slim majority view such violence as likely to increase—findings that will shape conversations among policymakers, academics and the public about the risks and responses associated with political conflict.