This is an extremely dumb article. a) Today intense partisan divisiveness and animosity is felt by the overwhelming majority of the US electorate, not just amo

This is an extremely dumb article. a) Today intense partisan divisiveness and animosity is felt by the overwhelming majority of the US electorate, not just among extremist groups with no formal political representation. Even taking the author's premise that the 70s had more bloodshed for granted, left-right animosity was comparatively low in conventional politics. A crucial factor of this was that the "realignment of the parties" had just begun with the Nixon administration, so there were still a great deal of centrist liberal Republicans and deeply conservative Democrats. b) Unlike the 70s, extremist politics are represented at the highest levels of government. This is only true of the right, which is highly relevant! c) Unlike the 70s, political extremism in the US is almost exclusively a right-wing phenomenon, both in government and in the general population. The few radical communists that actually exist in the US have little impact even on socialist discourse. The fact that Democrats have been moving left since 2005 is not at all symmetrical with the Republican plunge into proto-fascism starting in 2009. The lone gunman who attempted to kill Steve Scalise is not at all symmetrical with the masses who swarmed Charlottesville with anti-Semitic chants. Of course given the source none of this is a surprise. The author rather gives the game away by focusing exclusively on socialist/marxist terrorism. Arsonists don't generally like taking credit for their work.