My take is that this is on a separate Ruby Ridge/anarchist axis. Hostile toward authority, they believe government (i.e. both political parties) and power structures are inherently corrupt. These beliefs have little to do with Democrat or Republican politics, but happen to align more with the right on a few issues (like gun control).
You'll note I used terms Like "leftists" and not "Democrats" (as you do) because those are completely different things and my word choice was intentional.
There is no significant leftist movement or momentum in the United States. None. Your choice is between far right (Republican) and center right (Democrat). Both are (neo)liberals. Both are capitalists. Both are united when it comes to US foreign policy. As of the last election, both parties are pro-death penalty (it opposition to the death penalty dropped from the Democratic Party Platform in the 2024 election). Both support the current private health insurance system that most people are angry about.
>Both support the current private health insurance system that most people are angry about.
Notably, Tim Walz (VP candidate) praised UHC in a press comment after the shooting: "a terrible loss for the business and health care community", "Minnesota is sending our prayers to Brian's family and the UnitedHealthcare team". Amy Klobuchar said: "My thoughts are with Brian Thompson's family and loved ones and all those working at United Healthcare in Minnesota". So Democratic Party leaders were very much big supporters of these health insurance companies.
"...terrible loss for ... the healthcare community" sounds like they're claiming that UHC actually provides healthcare, or is somehow integral to the provision of healthcare, and certainly seems to paint the company as a respectable one. All these responses from these Dem leaders clearly ignore how much these companies have harmed Americans, which you can see in any news articles' comments sections about this shooting.
I read his Twitter before it was taken down, and his political takes seem kind of all over the place. I would not classify him as either leftist or center / alt right.
I don't think left-wing or right-wing makes sense here, it's small-l liberalism versus authoritarianism. In particular a lot of authoritarians are ideologically shallow and happy to adopt leftist/rightist beliefs opportunistically.
Which is likely how most of the USA splits politically as well: libertarian (classic liberal) vs. authoritarian. The Republican/Democrat split overlaps to some degree with this, but those axes are usually split by a handful of hot-button issues.
> Because of this, just like the first Trump shooter, the media will quickly completely forget about the suspect's politics.
I don't really see this bias existing to the extent you seem to be implying. The first Trump shooter didn't have many apparent political motives, and the second was completely crazy. The media definitely stops talking about things soon after they happen, but I don't have the impression that they're turning the a blind eye to right wing extremism. I mean, just look up "right wing extremism US" on Google news.
I expect that in this case, the shooter's motivations will defy the standard left/right split as more information is released, much like his apparent influence Ted Kaczynski. You mention Rogan, but Rogan supported Bernie Sanders in 2016. I would say liking Rogan shows an anti-authority streak more than anything.
As for why right wing politically motivated attacks seem to be more common than left wing ones, I'd suggest a few causes.
- People who have access to guns, grew up around guns, are willing to buy guns are more likely to be right wing, and are more likely to be identified as right wing for obvious reasons.
- People with low agreeableness and high neuroticism are more likely to be right wing, and those traits perhaps make politically motivated attacks more likely.
- Extremist right wing thought has perhaps been more effective in recruiting followers than extremist left wing thought since the fall of the Soviet Union.
> I guarantee you that if this suspect was a leftist in any way, even if he simply liked anything by Marx or Lenin on Goodreads, you would never hear the end of it.
> But it's worth asking: when someone resorts to violence in this way, why are their politics nearly always right-wing?
while i'm convinced you sincerely believe that, you do realize there are a roughly equal number of people equally sincerely convinced that the media/establishment/"they" are out to get them and their group instead. and that when someone resorts to violence it's (almost) always actually the other group, not them.
replace white with black and right with left. ann rand with marx. fox with msnbc. same "argument", often almost word-for-word.
don't stoop to tribalism as an excuse or explanation.
Is this left versus right? Or megacorps and elite donor class versus everyone else? I think this is mostly a story of someone committing genocide level injustices through their job as CEO, which virtually the entirety of the left right spectrum dislikes. Except the hyper rich or politically powerful. Not surprising to see VCs decrying the attack on podcasts and their LinkedIn profiles while saying absolutely nothing about the much larger crimes of the United Health group.
