What do you think?
Rate this book
Blood and Progress: A Century of Left-Wing Violence in America
For years, America’s political elite and the institutions in their control have led the public to believe that domestic political violence in the United States is almost solely a rightwing phenomenon. What if they are wrong?
In only the last several years, corporate CEOs and conservative influencers have been killed. Republican justices, presidents, and their staffs have been marked for death. Small-cell terrorist organizations have executed sophisticated attacks on law enforcement. And much it has been excused, even sometimes encouraged, by an intellectual ecosystem on the left that is, even now, incubating more political violence.
In Blood and Progress, National Review’s Noah Rothman presents a careful examination of leftwing violence in the United States – and comes away with the conclusion that violence designed to advance political objectives is, in our time, more often a project of the left. Indeed, today’s wave of left-wing violence and political terrorism has come to resemble similar waves of leftwing violence.
Rothman explores individual episodes of modern political violence, identifies their causes and effects, and considers the psychological disposition that leads thugs and agitators to conclude that violence begets positive social change. He compares those attacks to those committed by the leftwing terrorists during previous waves of similar violence at the dawn of the 20th Century and in the 1960s and ‘70s, finding a number of common threads in the process.
This book shines a spotlight on the degree to which progressive activists and prominent Democrats have excused and explained away violence over the decades. It condemns the suite of unworthy historical heroes and martyrs to which progressives genuflect, so many of whom themselves engaged in violence and criminality and encouraged the same from their acolytes. It identifies a troubling trend on the American right, which increasingly clings to the same rationalizations that justify left-wing terror and bloodshed. And it proposes some potential off-ramps that could avert the national cataclysm that awaits us if these trends develop unabated.
The book’s objective is to train American political observers to recognize leftwing violence and to apply the same scrutiny and foresight to it that they reserve for violence that comes from the right. We cannot arrest the trend toward political violence in America if we are focused on only one side of the equation. Until we resolve to respond to political violence consistently and with consistent revulsion, we will get more violence.
In only the last several years, corporate CEOs and conservative influencers have been killed. Republican justices, presidents, and their staffs have been marked for death. Small-cell terrorist organizations have executed sophisticated attacks on law enforcement. And much it has been excused, even sometimes encouraged, by an intellectual ecosystem on the left that is, even now, incubating more political violence.
In Blood and Progress, National Review’s Noah Rothman presents a careful examination of leftwing violence in the United States – and comes away with the conclusion that violence designed to advance political objectives is, in our time, more often a project of the left. Indeed, today’s wave of left-wing violence and political terrorism has come to resemble similar waves of leftwing violence.
Rothman explores individual episodes of modern political violence, identifies their causes and effects, and considers the psychological disposition that leads thugs and agitators to conclude that violence begets positive social change. He compares those attacks to those committed by the leftwing terrorists during previous waves of similar violence at the dawn of the 20th Century and in the 1960s and ‘70s, finding a number of common threads in the process.
This book shines a spotlight on the degree to which progressive activists and prominent Democrats have excused and explained away violence over the decades. It condemns the suite of unworthy historical heroes and martyrs to which progressives genuflect, so many of whom themselves engaged in violence and criminality and encouraged the same from their acolytes. It identifies a troubling trend on the American right, which increasingly clings to the same rationalizations that justify left-wing terror and bloodshed. And it proposes some potential off-ramps that could avert the national cataclysm that awaits us if these trends develop unabated.
The book’s objective is to train American political observers to recognize leftwing violence and to apply the same scrutiny and foresight to it that they reserve for violence that comes from the right. We cannot arrest the trend toward political violence in America if we are focused on only one side of the equation. Until we resolve to respond to political violence consistently and with consistent revulsion, we will get more violence.
368 pages, Hardcover
Published May 19, 2026
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
There is an influential narrative in American public discourse that political violence is primarily or asymmetrically a phenomenon of the political far-right. It is trivial to find examples of such claims being made by academics and prominent columnists, including Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Jason Stanley, Paul Krugman, Jamelle Bouie, Jonathan Chait, and David Neiwert.
Blood and Progress is a necessary rejoinder to these deeply misleading claims, which have either been animated and sustained by methodological errors, such as the miscoding of certain acts of violence as having partisan valences that they manifestly do not, or a mixture of partisan myopia and cynicism. Noah Rothman's thesis is built primarily around the latter issue. Although he doesn't provide an empirical analysis of political violence, which he argues is a fatally subjective project, he recapitulates the overlooked history of radical left-wing violence in America over the last century. This project builds on his essay in Commentary Magazine in February 2025 "A Clockwork Blue."
"A Clockwork Blue" argued that the "post–Cold War progressive left has made a fetish out of violent expressions of political zeal." Rothman traced a timeline beginning at the end of the 20th century in Seattle, where chaotic Black Bloc tactics emerged during an "anti-free-trade protest" of the WTO to the Occupy Wall Street movement to Black Lives Matter and finally to the continuation of spiraling political violence of the Trump era, where President Trump has endured at least three serious assassination attempts, Charlie Kirk was assassinated by a socially awkward Redditor with a transgender partner, and a healthcare insurance CEO was assassinated by a schizophrenic who has since been fawned over by prominent left-wing media figures like Taylor Lorenz.
Blood and Progress includes much of the same content but goes back further into the 20th century to show a relationship between today's left-wing political violence and the left-wing violence of the past. Rothman asserts a deep continuity between the tactics used, the rationalizations by partisans and allied journalists, and the resulting permission structure, which is bolstered further by any reactionary right-wing political violence that exists even when that violence is being misinterpreted. He walks through many examples of this, including the strange misinterpretations of clear fact patterns seen in certain instances of alleged right-wing violence. This has included the framing of basic good Samaritan activity (e.g. Daniel Penny) and self-defense cases (e.g. Kyle Rittenhouse and Darren Wilson) as right-wing political violence despite juries coming to the opposite conclusions in court.
Rothman's historical narrative starts with anarchist and labor movements (i.e. Galleanists) associated attacks and proceeds to the post-New-Left terrorists and anti-American militants like the Weather Underground, Symbionese Liberation Army, Black Panthers, FALN. This includes derisive coverage of the left's hagiographic myth-making for cause célèbres like Assata Shakur, Leonard Peltier, and Mumia Abu-Jamal. He also calls attention to the many points of connection between mainstream Democrats and some of these violent left-wingers, including Barack Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers and Biden's pardon of Peltier. This is less to blame the individual politicians and more to highlight the how cynical rationalization of violence authorizes idolization and this creates malign political incentives even for well-meaning pols given the nature of democracy.
Although some of the information and claims in the book may shock, surprise, and infuriate those of the left, Rothman hews closely to the facts. The work is not particularly polemical, taking more of an exasperated and solemn tone. Rothman also thinks some of the public narrative can be corrected by evaluating political violence differently than how federal agencies and other organizations do it today. For instance, he takes umbrage with the obfuscation introduced by treating certain heterodox manifestations of left-wing violence as ideologically incoherent despite the frequent availability of ideological statements from such actors. This "salad bar" theory of ideological extremism has gained in popularity as incidences of apparent left-wing violence have seemingly increased. Many readers may remember how assiduously journalists and Democratic politicians worked to tar Charlie Kirk's killer as a Gropyer rather than what he obviously was, a left-wing individual motivated by partisan hatred of Kirk.
Although I've yet to read it, I think Blood and Progress functions as an addendum to Bryan Burrough's Days of Rage, which followed revolutionary movements of the '70s. Rothman cites the book several times, especially when covering the radicals that emerged in the wake left by the chaos of the New Left and SDS. Rothman's account is at a greater remove from primary sources and is generally less detailed from what I can tell. Rothman, of course, is covering a broader period of history so to some extent the choice makes sense; however, there are times in the work where he basically assumes some historical knowledge on the part of the reader, which I think will fall flat with most younger readers. He is also making standard but real assumption about the legitimacy of the left-right political axis, which itself is dubious but has still provided a great deal of utility in political discourse.
I think it is unfortunate that Rothman doesn't provide an empirical the central question that inspired the book: Is there really an asymmetry to right-wing and left-wing political violence? Despite covering some of the well-known methodological (e.g. how should Islamist terrorism, the type of terrorism with the largest death toll, be coded?) and philosophical (Should anarchist violence count as left-wing?) issue when coding the partisan valence of events, Rothman doesn't answer this central quick, retreating to a position that broadly condemns all political violence. I agree with this position, especially in the context of today's America, but it isn't really an attempt to be definitive about fundamental philosophical issues at play. It is just a gesture to those in the political mainstream that the fringes of both parties have an issue with violence and that both could improve at rooting it out and that maybe Republicans have slightly better hygiene on this issue because the public processing of right-wing political violence is done more explicitly.
In some ways, it is understandably difficult to treat much of what is included as connected phenomena without an on-the-ground understanding of the relationships among various left-wing non-profits, interest groups, revolutionary cadres, funders, and politicians. It is qualitatively easy to detect these relationships, but the book could be improved by a real mapping of these relationships. The most persuasive portion of the book is the analysis of the asymmetric way left-of-center violence is handled by left-liberal elites compared to its mirror image on the right. There is a lot more legitimization and accommodation of radicalism on the left with Luigi Mangione's murder of Brian Thompson as a very recent example of this problem.
Despite some of the obvious limitations and the fact the essay basis of the book makes the same case the book does (so one can just read the essay), Blood and Progress is a very useful entry in public discourse because it raises the salience of political violence on the left to an issue on par with political violence on the right. It also helpfully illustrates how historically persistent yet absolutely futile the problem of left-wing violence and agitation has been. I even wish Rothman went further a presented a critique of mass or crowd politics as altogether illiberal, but, alas, he did not go out on that limb.
Blood and Progress is a necessary rejoinder to these deeply misleading claims, which have either been animated and sustained by methodological errors, such as the miscoding of certain acts of violence as having partisan valences that they manifestly do not, or a mixture of partisan myopia and cynicism. Noah Rothman's thesis is built primarily around the latter issue. Although he doesn't provide an empirical analysis of political violence, which he argues is a fatally subjective project, he recapitulates the overlooked history of radical left-wing violence in America over the last century. This project builds on his essay in Commentary Magazine in February 2025 "A Clockwork Blue."
"A Clockwork Blue" argued that the "post–Cold War progressive left has made a fetish out of violent expressions of political zeal." Rothman traced a timeline beginning at the end of the 20th century in Seattle, where chaotic Black Bloc tactics emerged during an "anti-free-trade protest" of the WTO to the Occupy Wall Street movement to Black Lives Matter and finally to the continuation of spiraling political violence of the Trump era, where President Trump has endured at least three serious assassination attempts, Charlie Kirk was assassinated by a socially awkward Redditor with a transgender partner, and a healthcare insurance CEO was assassinated by a schizophrenic who has since been fawned over by prominent left-wing media figures like Taylor Lorenz.
Blood and Progress includes much of the same content but goes back further into the 20th century to show a relationship between today's left-wing political violence and the left-wing violence of the past. Rothman asserts a deep continuity between the tactics used, the rationalizations by partisans and allied journalists, and the resulting permission structure, which is bolstered further by any reactionary right-wing political violence that exists even when that violence is being misinterpreted. He walks through many examples of this, including the strange misinterpretations of clear fact patterns seen in certain instances of alleged right-wing violence. This has included the framing of basic good Samaritan activity (e.g. Daniel Penny) and self-defense cases (e.g. Kyle Rittenhouse and Darren Wilson) as right-wing political violence despite juries coming to the opposite conclusions in court.
Rothman's historical narrative starts with anarchist and labor movements (i.e. Galleanists) associated attacks and proceeds to the post-New-Left terrorists and anti-American militants like the Weather Underground, Symbionese Liberation Army, Black Panthers, FALN. This includes derisive coverage of the left's hagiographic myth-making for cause célèbres like Assata Shakur, Leonard Peltier, and Mumia Abu-Jamal. He also calls attention to the many points of connection between mainstream Democrats and some of these violent left-wingers, including Barack Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers and Biden's pardon of Peltier. This is less to blame the individual politicians and more to highlight the how cynical rationalization of violence authorizes idolization and this creates malign political incentives even for well-meaning pols given the nature of democracy.
Although some of the information and claims in the book may shock, surprise, and infuriate those of the left, Rothman hews closely to the facts. The work is not particularly polemical, taking more of an exasperated and solemn tone. Rothman also thinks some of the public narrative can be corrected by evaluating political violence differently than how federal agencies and other organizations do it today. For instance, he takes umbrage with the obfuscation introduced by treating certain heterodox manifestations of left-wing violence as ideologically incoherent despite the frequent availability of ideological statements from such actors. This "salad bar" theory of ideological extremism has gained in popularity as incidences of apparent left-wing violence have seemingly increased. Many readers may remember how assiduously journalists and Democratic politicians worked to tar Charlie Kirk's killer as a Gropyer rather than what he obviously was, a left-wing individual motivated by partisan hatred of Kirk.
Although I've yet to read it, I think Blood and Progress functions as an addendum to Bryan Burrough's Days of Rage, which followed revolutionary movements of the '70s. Rothman cites the book several times, especially when covering the radicals that emerged in the wake left by the chaos of the New Left and SDS. Rothman's account is at a greater remove from primary sources and is generally less detailed from what I can tell. Rothman, of course, is covering a broader period of history so to some extent the choice makes sense; however, there are times in the work where he basically assumes some historical knowledge on the part of the reader, which I think will fall flat with most younger readers. He is also making standard but real assumption about the legitimacy of the left-right political axis, which itself is dubious but has still provided a great deal of utility in political discourse.
I think it is unfortunate that Rothman doesn't provide an empirical the central question that inspired the book: Is there really an asymmetry to right-wing and left-wing political violence? Despite covering some of the well-known methodological (e.g. how should Islamist terrorism, the type of terrorism with the largest death toll, be coded?) and philosophical (Should anarchist violence count as left-wing?) issue when coding the partisan valence of events, Rothman doesn't answer this central quick, retreating to a position that broadly condemns all political violence. I agree with this position, especially in the context of today's America, but it isn't really an attempt to be definitive about fundamental philosophical issues at play. It is just a gesture to those in the political mainstream that the fringes of both parties have an issue with violence and that both could improve at rooting it out and that maybe Republicans have slightly better hygiene on this issue because the public processing of right-wing political violence is done more explicitly.
In some ways, it is understandably difficult to treat much of what is included as connected phenomena without an on-the-ground understanding of the relationships among various left-wing non-profits, interest groups, revolutionary cadres, funders, and politicians. It is qualitatively easy to detect these relationships, but the book could be improved by a real mapping of these relationships. The most persuasive portion of the book is the analysis of the asymmetric way left-of-center violence is handled by left-liberal elites compared to its mirror image on the right. There is a lot more legitimization and accommodation of radicalism on the left with Luigi Mangione's murder of Brian Thompson as a very recent example of this problem.
Despite some of the obvious limitations and the fact the essay basis of the book makes the same case the book does (so one can just read the essay), Blood and Progress is a very useful entry in public discourse because it raises the salience of political violence on the left to an issue on par with political violence on the right. It also helpfully illustrates how historically persistent yet absolutely futile the problem of left-wing violence and agitation has been. I even wish Rothman went further a presented a critique of mass or crowd politics as altogether illiberal, but, alas, he did not go out on that limb.
May 20, 2026
Blood and Progress is one of those rare books that feels like it wrote itself as events contuie to unfold in the world today, making its message impossible to ignore. Rothman does an incredible job connecting historical left-wing political violence to the chaos and extremism we continue to see in the world. From past revolutionary movements to current events and figures like Charlie Kirk, the parallels can’t be ignored.
What makes this book so compelling is that it doesn’t just rehash history it explains how patterns repeat themselves, how violence gets rationalized, and how political culture can slowly normalize extremism. Rothman’s writing is sharp, well-researched, and incredibly readable.
Whether you agree with every conclusion or not, this is the kind of book that forces you to think critically and look at current events through a much broader historical lens. It could not be more timely. Blood and Progress is a great read, an important read, and one of those books that genuinely leaves you smarter after finishing it.
What makes this book so compelling is that it doesn’t just rehash history it explains how patterns repeat themselves, how violence gets rationalized, and how political culture can slowly normalize extremism. Rothman’s writing is sharp, well-researched, and incredibly readable.
Whether you agree with every conclusion or not, this is the kind of book that forces you to think critically and look at current events through a much broader historical lens. It could not be more timely. Blood and Progress is a great read, an important read, and one of those books that genuinely leaves you smarter after finishing it.
Review of advance copy received from Netgalley
The author focuses a lot on violence from left wing radicals in America towards more conservative media figures, but it does not give the weight it should to the antisemitism directed toward Jews by leftists who identify with the so-called Palestinians. Many Jew Americans have joined the Republican Party because of attacks on Israeli and the hostages in Gaza, as well as the violent attacks on Jews worldwide including the shootings in Australia.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews