I'm taking a far left example because i don't want my argumentation to fall under partisan lines. In the 70s, we lived in europe under the threat of the RAF [0

I'm taking a far left example because i don't want my argumentation to fall under partisan lines. In the 70s, we lived in europe under the threat of the RAF [0], that was born out of a mix of misery, anger, violent radicality supported by the public and by some politics. Once the terrorist attacks and the violent actions against people stated, there was an unanimous condemnation from all political parties, including the communist party (at least in France), and from activist groups, including some that would now be called "antifa" (autodefense and protection groups against "ratonnades" and other urban occupation groups). With support from a part of the population, the RAF grew and convinced more and more people. Without a firm condemnation from the affiliated political party/activist groups, i'm not sure the group would've come down as easily. That's why i think that as long as people in power support the extremists, they will perform extreme actions. In this case, this is the Republican party job to crash down on violence against people (idc about broken windows in the House tbh). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction