Big Polarization, Small Violence: What Follows Political Shocks in the United States?

Americans increasingly express hostility toward opposing partisans, and survey research demonstrates that a nontrivial share of citizens express will to engage in political violence against their political opponents. Still, it remains unclear to what extent these attitudes translate real-life political violence. Using 126 weeks of ACLED event-level data across six major political triggers, I examine how political violence changes in response to periods of heightened political tension. In my analysis, I focus purely on political violence and exclude broader violent disorder of demonstration contexts, which often involves vandalism, civil disobedience-related arrests, and confrontations between protesters where no clear political purpose or aggressor can be established. The findings show little evidence that political violence systematically increases following political shocks, nor does it become more clearly attributable to ideologically aligned actors or targets. In fact, most incidents remain fragmented, situational, and not connected to organized partisan conflict. The results suggest that although affective polarization may intensify hostile attitudes, the translation from partisan animosity to organized ideological violence is considerably weaker than often assumed.