I was walking to my dorm after class when I heard the news: Charlie Kirk, a well-known conservative political activist, was shot at Utah Valley University while speaking to students at an on-campus event. My heart dropped to my stomach. I paused for a second to scroll through the many articles, all of which were still being updated with the latest news on the story.
Just a couple of hours later, Kirk was pronounced dead at Timpanogos Regional Hospital. His passing was met with a spectrum of emotions, ranging from grief to joy, from the online community and political figures alike.
I didn’t agree with him on everything he stood for as a public figure known for his highly conservative ideology, but the sudden news of his death unexpectedly overwhelmed me. One minute he was there, and the next, he was gone. Another act of senseless political violence ending in tragedy.
This event exemplifies a major political problem. Throughout history, people have resorted to inflicting pain on others in order to achieve political objectives. Some examples of these events include the assassination of numerous political figures, such as Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr. Such actions are often used as solutions to existing problems, mechanisms of mobilization, and tactics to exert fear and force upon the general public.
Political violence has been more prominent and publicized recently due to the influx of high-profile attacks. The most well-known of these events have been the two attempted shootings of Donald Trump, the fatal shooting of two Democratic legislators from Minnesota, and most recently, the killing of Charlie Kirk.
In 2024, there were two attempts on Donald Trump’s life that made headlines during his presidential campaign. The first was during a rally in Butler, Pa., on July 13. A man fired multiple shots toward Trump that grazed his right ear. He was rushed by the Secret Service off the stage and toward his motorcade, fist pumping in the air before he got into the car. The gunman, a 20-year-old Pennsylvania native named Thomas Matthew Crooks, was shot and killed by the Secret Service during the rally. In the investigations that followed, evidence surfaced that revealed he was planning many months prior to the event. There are many conspiracies that speculate his motives. Some people suspect that his actions were tied to his declining mental health and cynicism regarding the federal government and big corporations, evidenced by previous written assignments in school.
The second attempt occurred on Sept. 15 at Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Fla. A man named Ryan Wesley Routh was hiding in one of the bushes at the perimeter of the golf club. The secret service spotted him with an aimed rifle and he was later apprehended. While his motives are partially unclear, they appear to have stemmed primarily from dissatisfaction with Trump’s stances on the war in Ukraine.
In the aftermath of these events, particularly the first attempt in July, many leaders on all sides of the ideological spectrum – from Republican representatives to other then-presidential candidates – condemned the violent act and spoke out against political violence. At the same time, there was increased fear of election and politics-related violence, and both Democrats and Republicans pointed fingers at each other, trying to argue who instigated the violence.
Two Democratic legislators from Minnesota and their spouses were the targets of another act of political violence. On June 14, a man named Vance Boelter came into their houses with firearms and body armor, disguised as a law enforcement officer. First he knocked on the door of Sen. John Hoffman, and when he and his wife attempted to close the door after seeing he had a face mask, he shot them multiple times. Then he went to the house of Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman. From outside, he fired several gunshots into the house, which hit her husband, Mark Hortman, and then rushed inside to fire more shots at Hortman herself. While the Hoffmans came out alive, the Hortmans both died in the hospital as a result of the injuries they sustained. Boelter’s goal was to induce fear and violence on the Minnesota legislators, and in particular, all or most of the potential targets found in one of his notebooks were Democratic officials. Additionally, records show that he was conservative in his political ideologies, seeing as he was a Christian who strongly opposed abortion and voted in the 2024 Minnesota Republican presidential primary.
Boelter was taken into custody following a two-day manhunt, and he was indicted on six federal charges in relation to his aforementioned actions. This event refocused the conversation on political violence, once again drawing attention from political leaders calling for an end to it. It also generated fear among other legislators who worried for their own safety and the lack of security resources available to them amidst the danger.
As a result of this series of events, political figures from both sides of the aisle have attempted to quell the rise in violence by encouraging their supporters toward peace. Gavin Newsom, California’s Democratic governor, formally denounced the political violence inflicted on Charlie Kirk, saying that “His senseless murder is a reminder of how important it is for all of us, across the political spectrum, to foster genuine discourse on issues that deeply affect us all without resorting to political violence.”
Even Donald Trump, who developed a relatively close relationship with Kirk, urged his supporters to respond to the situation with “nonviolence” but still pointed fingers by framing the radical left as a “group of lunatics.”
But despite influential leaders’ fierce opposition to political attacks, this has not stopped the endemic of violence instilled in American culture right now. No matter how much they seem to remediate the circumstances, these acts continue to arise due to an underlying problem: increasing ideological polarization throughout the country.
This trend has become a positive feedback loop: political extremism and violence fuel each other. In other words, political violence enacted by extremists causes Democrats and Republicans to blame each other, which polarizes their beliefs and intensifies extremism. Ultimately, this further legitimizes more political violence.
The reality is that violence does not solve political problems. When Trump was targeted, this only gave him a bigger platform to bolster his moral strength and rally his supporters. He was depicted as a hero and revered by many because of the way he bounced back during his campaign.
When the Democratic legislators from Minnesota were shot, this only established fear among other political figures and revealed the increasing danger to them in different levels of government. The event didn’t change any form of legislation or achieve any other political motive. The attackers’ goals were not reached.
Furthermore, a study conducted by Brown University revealed how the long-term trends of polarization have been more significant in the U.S. than eight other countries since the 1970s, such as the U.K., Canada, and Australia. In public opinion surveys spanning across four decades, participants rated their perspectives from 0 to 100, which reflected how negatively they felt toward opposing political parties. In 1978, the average American rated their own party 27 points above the opposing party, whereas in 2016, that number increased to 45.9. Shapiro attributed this trend in the U.S. to various causes – increasing positioning with specific religious or political ideologies, the rise in 24-hour partisan broadcasting, and the prominence of party sorting.
Another study conducted by Pennsylvania State University used two empirical tests to assess the hypotheses that people in the U.S. who display partisan polarization are more likely to support political violence and that democracies with greater levels of polarization are more likely to have higher levels of political violence. In conducting its analyses, the study supported these ideas linking polarization and violence.
The reality is that existing systems built to create solutions can fail. Political bodies riddled with extreme partisan viewpoints – from Congress to local governments – do not always make decisions that benefit every group of people, which understandably causes frustration among them.
It is hard for the human brain to comprehend that violence is not the answer. It is instilled with an aggression response when there is a perceived threat to oneself or others, so people therefore default to violence when politics fail them and their communities.
But even when institutions fail, it is the people’s responsibility to speak up and find ways to share their voices rather than falling back on human instincts. It is their own initiative to end brutality and engage in conversation that makes all the difference. Here are two methods to take initiative.
First, problems should be solved by working together to create equal and beneficial systems of power. Whether it be through calling upon local legislators, engaging in peaceful protests, or just actively pushing political conversations forward, these are the things that people need to do in order to create effective change. An example that illustrates the effectiveness of these solutions is the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and ‘60s. In particular, Martin Luther King Jr. pioneered the movement by advocating for peaceful protest. His actions influenced the establishment of government policies such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and made progress in creating equality for African Americans in the U.S. Another example is the “Stop Asian Hate” movement, which began in 2020 following anti-Asian sentiments and violence during the pandemic. Through peaceful protest and advocacy, activists gained visibility for their communities, policy enactment, and safety and monetary support. These two movements illustrate the positive effects of peace rather than violence.
Second, we must create a norm where people can work together to encourage political discourse and debate. This can be done by increasing education about political events and varying ideologies instead of shying away from these topics. Additionally, the media needs to focus more on bipartisan reporting rather than biased associations with specific political groups and objectives. People need to hear both sides of debates rather than being fed what they want to hear because that’s how productive conversation is formed. All of this is easier said than done, but if people choose to educate themselves and actively seek out differing perspectives, they can overcome the challenges of political polarization and the media. Because when people listen, that is when they truly understand and give grace to each other.
Charlie Kirk is just one of the many lives needlessly claimed because people are consistently choosing to hide behind their weapons rather than engage in political discussion. So many more are at risk if this pattern continues. The question is not how we can fight back, but how we can put a stop to violence. We alone have the power to solve this. It is just a matter of when we choose to step up.
Featured Image Source: Politics and Rights Review
