Yes, politically motivated attacks still occur and can be horrific. Yet the broader trend in extremist mobilization suggests less organized violence, not more.
This article is sane washing or the writers need to be far more clear about their definitions.
They’re claiming political violence is down, while conflating political violence, extremist violence, and event specific violence one paragraph to the next.
The reason this is a terrible take is because you currently have unprecedented levels of State violence through organisations like ICE.
The violence being perpetrated by ICE is the most political of political violence. It was promoted, expanded and sent forth by the extremist politicians with an extremist agenda.
By this articles definition of political, the Stasi were simply your local bobby there to help get a cat out the tree.
Sane washing, is normalisation of the extremism wielding power, something the writers warn against. They should consider that advice themselves.
No i didn’t, they didn’t highlight ICE particularly, and postulate that maybe these groups are inactive because they’re all joining that organisation; They didn’t state the violence coming from the State; they euphamised it with ‘their policies’.
Edit: They also suggest political violence is down, as i say at the top of my first comment, they need to define their terms carefully. They use three different measures that count different things. State violence is political violence, the fact they say political violence is down without even a qualification is a tacit legitimisation of the State as non-political in their measures. This is an absurdity, no matter the regime in power.
The article attempts to explain a lower level of political violence gesturing that its because of State “policies”, call the spade a spade, its State violence.