When the protests following George Floyd’s death erupted, some demonstrators resorted to violence and property destruction. Did that strike you as political violence? What about the 2017 rally in Charlottesville where Heather Heyer was killed? Did you see that as political violence? How about when protesters in Los Angeles threw bricks and bottles at immigration agents? Or when Trump supporters stormed the Capitol on January 6th? Most would agree the answer is yes to all of these.
Political violence has been a reality for quite some time now, yet voices across the political spectrum often claim it’s largely one-sided—usually the side they oppose.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk has reignited these discussions. Obviously, it’s an act of political violence that deserves condemnation. Still, many, including Republicans and the president, are quick to blame the “radical left.” Meanwhile, Democrats are trying to avoid justifying or glorifying the act. Some individuals are facing consequences, like losing their jobs, just for voicing their opinions. There’s a lot of finger-pointing about “lowering the temperature,” yet those same voices have cranked up the heat.
Kirk’s death isn’t a new chapter in political violence, despite some claims. We’ve been navigating this landscape for a while now, and many Americans feel it may only get worse. Can you really blame them? We pride ourselves on individualism, but we still tend to follow leaders when expressing our views.
Every day, we’re bombarded with hateful messages through our screens, urging us to dislike others.
This is definitely not just a one-sided issue. It’s easy to jump in and say the other side has said which is outrageous, and there’s likely some truth in that. But, let’s not pretend your side is perfect either.
As a liberal, I’ve watched nearly every Republican over the last two decades draw comparisons between their political opponents and Nazis. George W. Bush faced such criticism during the Iraq War, but Trump opponents have hurled similar accusations at various Republican figures. Yet, let’s be honest, many Democrats haven’t exactly kept it civil when it comes to criticizing Obama, either.
We politicized the tragedy of Sandy Hook and turned Trayvon Martin’s story into a larger political narrative. Even a brief video of Nicholas Sandmann became a symbol for a variety of political sentiments—who was leading those accusations? You know the answer.
In our current climate, being the loudest and most provocative often earns you the most attention and influence. Take Kirk, for example. Before the cause of the Maui wildfire was thoroughly examined, he claimed it was linked to Hawaiian culture, which isn’t exactly nuanced. He could have pointed out governmental failures or mismanagement instead, but stirring controversy pays better.
This tendency to “raise the temperature” isn’t isolated. It’s happening all over the place. Many influencers are fanning the flames just to rack up views and drive engagement.
What does this mean? Should anyone deserve violence for their opinions? Absolutely not. However, let’s not pretend that someone like Kirk was merely interested in having an open dialogue. He gained prominence in a competitive social media environment where being the loudest often wins out. Look at Ben Shapiro’s antics—he often goes viral for being incendiary.
While the investigation into Kirk’s alleged assailant continues, some have labeled him as a follower of a controversial figure, claiming that Kirk was targeted for being too mainstream. Is that the truth? Who knows? But it sure raises curiosity, doesn’t it?
If we genuinely want to reduce political violence, politicians must change their rhetoric and news media should stop glorifying outrage. As a nation, we need to reassess how we engage with and respond to the chaos on social media. Are those adjustments realistic? I think we can agree they are necessary.
Once again, I’ll criticize liberal politicians. There’s been quite a stir over California Governor Gavin Newsom’s recent social media presence, echoing Trump with a different twist. But does that temper the conversation? And to all the conservative leaders out there—while Kirk’s death is undeniably tragic, is it wise to blame the “radical left” before knowing the facts? Do you really believe all liberals would resort to violence? Is that the message you want to spread?
Kirk’s death serves as a broader warning for politicians and influencers chasing followers and engagement. Americans are already dealing with violence; how many followers do you need to recognize your role in escalating tensions?
