KANSAS CITY, Mo. (TNS) — The antisemitic attacks in Boulder, Colorado, and Washington, D.C., alongside the recent white nationalist demonstration in Kansas City, expose a disquieting asymmetry in how society recognizes and condemns extremist ideology. Right-wing extremism is broadly denounced across the political spectrum because its ideological foundations — religious chauvinism, racial superiority and ethnic purity — are widely discredited.

Left-wing extremism, by contrast, often evades similar scrutiny. It cloaks itself in language of human rights and resistance, appealing to noble ideals that render it more difficult to recognize and, in some circles, more morally palatable. Its actors are too often cast not as zealots, but as freedom fighters.

Right-wing extremism is roundly rejected by both liberal and conservative audiences. Its roots — white supremacy, racial nationalism and nostalgia for exclusionary hierarchies — are regressive and unmistakable. A forward-looking liberal democracy cannot embrace an ideology that seeks to resurrect a past defined by inequality and domination. Calls for racial or religious superiority no longer enjoy intellectual or moral legitimacy.

Left-wing extremism, as reflected in antisemitic violence committed under the banner of Palestinian solidarity, presents a more complicated threat. It wraps itself in language of human dignity, equality and social justice. Its intellectual lineage traces to critical theories of power, identity and liberation — frameworks that, while offering legitimate critiques of systemic inequality, can be distorted to justify ideological rigidity or even violence in pursuit of a perceived moral end.

This dynamic is not new. Throughout history, movements advance their most intolerant ambitions by appealing to the highest available moral frameworks. The Crusades were justified through religion and salvation. Nineteenth-century colonialism appealed to racial and civilizational supremacy. Today, extremist rhetoric cloaks itself in the language of human rights and liberation. This evolution makes modern left-wing extremism harder to identify and condemn because it strategically exploits the moral vocabulary of a liberal society. Its adherents are too often seen as defenders of justice, not agents of harm.

The recent attacks in Colorado and Washington, D.C., underscore this danger. In both cases, the perpetrators invoked pro-Palestinian slogans while targeting Jewish victims. These were not acts of political expression — they were acts of antisemitic violence. Yet, as with certain reactions to the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attacks on Israelis, these assaults risk being distorted or rationalized because they are framed as resistance on behalf of the oppressed rather than aggression against an insular minority.

Civil society condemns right-wing extremism swiftly and unequivocally, in part because its ideological claims are crude and easily discredited. Their lack of moral complexity makes the danger obvious. We do not see the same speed or clarity when confronting left-wing extremism, not because its moral failures are less severe, but because its arguments are more nuanced, couched in values liberal democracies hold dear. That nuance can obscure the hate lurking beneath the rhetoric.

Hate, regardless of its ideological origin, begets hate. Just as the state has a duty to protect even offensive speech, civil society has a corresponding duty to reject hate in all its forms. Patriot Front’s conspiracy-laden speech about Zionists controlling the U.S. government is no less toxic than far-left rhetoric opposing Zionism in geopolitical discourse when that rhetoric denies Jews the right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. Cloaking such intolerance in the language of justice or human rights does not make it less dangerous — it makes it more insidious.

A tolerant society, paradoxically, cannot tolerate intolerance — no matter its ideological mask. Failing to confront left-wing extremism with the same moral clarity applied to the far right risks allowing a small, intolerant fringe cloaked in virtue to escape scrutiny and crowd out the tolerant majority.

If we are to preserve an open and pluralistic society, we must apply consistent scrutiny to all forms of extremism. That requires moral clarity, intellectual honesty and a refusal to excuse hate simply because it wears the garb of justice. Right-wing religious or racial extremism may be more visible and less persuasive in today’s public square, but left-wing extremism — when masked by appeals to justice and liberation — presents a different and increasingly potent threat. If left unexamined, it risks corroding the very democratic values it claims to defend.

We must resist the temptation to view extremism as the exclusive province of one side. True tolerance demands principled consistency. It demands that we reject all forms of extremism — whether they march in plain sight or operate behind a veil of moral virtue.

(Harrison M. Rosenthal is a media lawyer and commercial litigator. He previously served as a staff attorney at the nonpartisan Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.)