Several years ago, I wrote a blog about the complex economic, cultural, and social factors that usually come together to create a perfect storm, with hate crimes as an emerging consequence. I focused on the unintended effects of rapid technological development over the past fifty years, which boosted economic productivity but also led to job losses and reduced demand for labor. With unemployment comes not only economic instability but also deep frustration and a loss of personal dignity for millions who feel powerless and culturally marginalized.
In such a social context, political leaders often exploit voter frustration and helplessness by offering simple solutions to complex economic and cultural changes. A common tactic is to blame socially marginalized groups, such as immigrants or minorities, for social and economic problems arising from the unintended consequences of fundamental societal change.
A combination of unemployment, loss of personal dignity and exploitative political leadership, is a recipe for social unrest and hyper-partisan divide. Such a confluence of influences increases the potential for a level of frustration to become combustible. Still, the great majority of people do not become hateful or violent. But a small minority does, and that minority fuels further unrest. It pays then to identify the characteristics of those individuals who are at risk of perpetrating violence that is not out of personal animus, but because the victims belong to a category of people who have been identified as the source of society’s ills.
Hate crimes are driven by bias against specific groups that are viewed as the cause of social ills, and violence as the supposed remedy. As of September 2025, the FBI reported 341 such shootings, resulting in 331 deaths caused by perpetrators motivated by hate against individuals belonging to these groups or categories. For example, at the start of the year, a self-described follower of ISIS drove a truck into a crowd celebrating on Bourbon Street in New Orleans, killing 14 people.
It is easy to understand a random act of violence committed by a psychotic individual who, for example, was delusional. Indeed, paranoid delusional, especially if they are also experiencing command hallucination, and are prompted by their inner voices to act violently. Witness the recent murder of activist Charlie Kirk by Tyler Robinson because of the activist’s opposition to Tran’s rights. Or Patrick Wood Crusius, who massacred 23 Walmart shoppers in Texas because he believed that Hispanics were invading the state and replacing White people.
Almost all hate crimes, it turns out, are not caused by symptoms of a major mental illness, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, or by drug addiction. The great majority of hate crimes are perpetrated by an individual with a personality disorder, which is defined by the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) as someone with an enduring pattern of inner experience or behavior that deviates from expectations, is pervasive, inflexible, and stable over time, and leads to distress. Twelve variations of disordered personalities are defined in the manual, with the most well-known being antisocial, borderline, and narcissistic.
The DSM does not explain the developmental conditions under which personality disorders are formed, nor does it provide insight into the emotional and interpersonal vulnerabilities associated with personality disorders. With some exceptions, these conditions conditions begin to take shape early in life, often the result of insecure forms of infancy-caretaker attachment, and more often than not in union with a chaotic and unpredictable family life. Severe personality dysfunction is associated with severe forms of abuse or trauma. Temperament, together with the type and intensity of disruption during the formative years, tends to shape the particular kind of personality disorder.
Individuals with severe personality dysfunction – those more likely to act out with hatefulness – lack an essential sense of psychological well-being and safety, which leads to an emotional vigilance and avoidance of intimacy, and a sense of weariness of those who appear different and do not share one’s values. In addition, with such a level of emotional vulnerability, these individuals live with a fundamental distrust in the shared assumptions of social reality (e.g., “All people are created equal, or “Nobody is above the law.) As a result of having one’s formative years fraught with abject insecurity and uncertainty, the result is an adult life saddled with chronic interpersonal problems, a fear of closeness, and an avoidance of emotional intimacy. In addition—and this is a crucial deficit related to hate crimes—they lack a sense of epistemic trust, meaning confidence in social institutions and the accumulation of knowledge and information that our civil institutions represent.
Now, consider a cultural context that’s brewing with social unrest, mega-partisanship, and grievance-filled conspiratorial theories, all fueled by political leaders for their own parochial political purposes. About 30 million Americans are estimated to have personality disorders, with about 1.2% suffering from a severe disturbance. This means that over 30 million of the population harbor distrust of people and the institutions of civil society —a portion of which poses a significant risk of committing a hate crime when provoked by an unscrupulous leader, or by careless influencers who exaggerate dangers and stoke grievances against political rivals.
Consider the political trajectory of Vance Luther Boelter, who in June 2025 shot to death Democratic legislator Melissa Hortman, her husband, and her dog. After his arrest, he authorities found dozens of potential targets—Democrats who are pro-choice supporters. Mr. Boelter is an exemplar of a severe personality disorder infected by political rhetoric. Not content with legally protesting against abortion, he acted upon his beliefs in the most deadly manner. A childhood friend of Mr. Boelter, who was interviewed, described him as one with an inner “darkness” and who was prejudice and grievance-fixated. He was an ideal candidate for a hate crime, ready to be ignited.
Although identifying troubled individuals who endanger society may be difficult, we can—and should—hold leaders responsible when their speech and conduct intensify polarization, with potentially tragic consequences.
