> U.S. Vice President JD Vance, in an interview with Fox News on Wednesday, repeatedly blamed what he called left-wing political radicalization for the assassination.
From an external non-US point of view, it looks like the opposite: the radicalization has been hard to the right. In a post-truth environment where loud speech is the most effective, it is natural for this to be denied and weaponized.
Why would that be relevant? The politics of the shooter can be entirely separate from the general trends of radicalization within the culture.
As far as I know we don't yet actually know enough about the shooter's motives to draw conclusions, although obviously conclusions will be drawn regardless.
From an external non-US point of view, it looks like the opposite: the radicalization has been hard to the right. In a post-truth environment where loud speech is the most effective, it is natural for this to be denied and weaponized.