From Disagreement to Dehumanization—Violence Went Mainstream in Politics

Charlie Kirk's Assassination: The Civic Test America Failed

On Wednesday, Sept. 10, conservative political activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed during a Turning Point USA rally at Utah Valley University. News of the assassination spread like wildfire, and the public expressed outrage. However, the Republican Party quickly blamed Democrats for the killing, while Democrats used the shooting to highlight Republican hypocrisy. This partisan crossfire shifted focus from the principle that political murder is unacceptable. The assassination became a campaign weapon as both parties let partisan reflexes override civic duty.

Condemning political murder requires no qualifiers. While both sides expressed disappointment, neither stood united in condemning the act. It shouldn't matter what Kirk said; he was simply expressing his opinion to supporters when he was killed. The response from both parties was unacceptable and highlights the destructive radicalization of American politics.

This is not a eulogy for Kirk or for American democracy. It is a diagnosis. Political radicalization is a sickness in America, and Kirk's assassination tested it’s civic reflex. America failed. It revealed how poisoned America's political parties have become.

When Kirk's death was announced, many online expressed not grief but tribal glee—the celebration people show when someone from the opposing "tribe" is hurt, killed, or humiliated. This shifted focus from the murder to perceived political advantages. Some Democratic Party members across the nation expressed joy at Kirk's shooting.

Before the body was cold, there were calls for revenge. This pivot turns tragedy into justification for more violence instead of civic reflection. Such reactions pollute the republic as the response becomes "hit back harder," normalizing violence as political language.

America needs to recognize that the assassination isn't about partisan politics; it's about democracy. The shooting desecrates democratic principles on which the country was founded, yet partisanship distracted us when clarity was most needed.

1963 vs. Today: The Reflex That Vanished

On Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas, President John F. Kennedy (JFK) was riding in a presidential motorcade through Dealey Plaza with first lady Jacqueline Kennedy, Texas Gov. John Connally, among others. As the motorcade passed the Texas School Book Depository, shots rang out. Kennedy was struck in the head and neck, and Connally was also seriously wounded. Kennedy was pronounced dead about 30 minutes later. The death brought about bipartisan mourning, and Republicans and Democrats alike saw this as an assault on democracy itself.

In the immediate aftermath, both parties halted their campaigns, ads were pulled from TV and radio, and political rallies and speeches were postponed. The idea behind these actions is evident and straightforward: Partisanship stops when the republic itself is wounded. Members of both parties attended Kennedy's funeral together, Congress recessed, and then reconvened in unity, with Republicans and Democrats jointly honoring him.

Compare this narrative with the one America saw a few weeks ago. There were competing narratives within minutes of the event, and no shared moment of processing. The media went wild with competing accusations and arguments. It threw the country into chaos. People were celebrating, mourning, and grappling with complex ethical ideologies simultaneously, as a continuous flow of ideas continued to grow. What citizens witnessed weren't the actions of a nation with strong democratic reflexes, but of a system teetering on anarchy—where outrage replaces unity, and violence replaces civic order.

During his 2008 campaign, Republican nominee John McCain was speaking in the town hall in Lakeville, Minnesota. He offered a stark contrast to today's politics. In this exchange, a woman walked up to the microphone to speak directly to McCain and made the claim, "Obama is an Arab." McCain takes the microphone out of her hands and shakes his head in disagreement. "No, ma'am," McCain said. "He's a decent family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues." This ideology of practicing politics is no longer present in today's debates, speeches, and rallies, even though this was only about 17 years ago. America's leaders once defended their opponents' legitimacy while holding opposing political views. This is a lost tradition that must resurface for legitimate civil politics.

The radicalization of bipartisan politics in America brought about a casualty: a shared vocabulary for placing democracy above partisanship.

The Dangerous Path of Dehumanizing Rhetoric

In modern politics, every moment matters. Everything a politician does in public is archived and shared in some form on the internet. Naturally, this leads individuals or organizations to dig up old moments out of context and push an incomplete narrative to the masses. Dehumanizing the competition outperforms policy debates, even when the opposing side has an equally valid argument. This creates negative partisanship, where hatred of opponents is stronger than love of an individual's own political position.

Political language has evolved dramatically. What was once considered wrong is now labeled illegitimate, and what was illegitimate is now characterized as vermin. America went from "wrong on policy" to "enemy of the people." As political language escalates, moderate voices become buried and inflammatory voices take the stage. Once politics becomes less than human in rhetoric, violence becomes thinkable.

The rhetoric that made the Charlie Kirk assassination thinkable didn't develop overnight. It was built through escalating language where political opponents were first described as misguided, then dangerous, then evil and finally as existential threats. When opponents are framed as inhuman or illegitimate, violence becomes rationalized as self-defense. This creates an atmosphere where specific individuals aren't directly ordering violence, but their rhetoric makes violence predictable and even probable. The person who shot Kirk wasn't formally directed to do so but was swimming in a sea of rhetoric that made such an action seem justifiable or even necessary.

Americans should attack ideas, not politicians. Political disagreement is healthy when it focuses on policy, values and trade-offs—not on destroying the humanity of the person who holds a different view. Politics has become a battlefield, an "us versus them," filled with buzzwords that inflame the media and hide the actual issues at hand. America must preserve the humanity of opponents as a nonnegotiable rule. Over the last decade, partisan hostility has moved well beyond ordinary disagreement: many Americans now describe political opponents not just as wrong, but as dishonest, immoral or even a threat to the nation's well-being. Politics without humanity is no politics at all.

Nationalism Isn't Patriotism—and It Breeds Permission for Violence

Nationalism creates endless opportunities for violence as it demands tribal conformity. America lives under the illusion of the American Dream as an excuse for its people to commit bad acts. America needs to combat nationalism and create loyalty not to the country but to the democratic principles on which it was founded.

Nationalism presents itself as patriotism but functions as its opposite. Where patriotism honors founding principles like liberty and justice, nationalism demands loyalty to the nation regardless of its actions. This distinction matters deeply for American civic health. Patriotism allows citizens to criticize their country when it fails to uphold its ideals. Nationalism condemns such criticism as treason. In today's polarized climate, legitimate dissent is often labeled as unpatriotic when, in fact, holding one's country accountable to its highest ideals is the essence of true patriotism.

American citizens value their political parties more than they value the Constitution. We saw this with the recent assassination, when both parties immediately framed the murder through partisan lenses instead of defending the principle that underpins the republic: No one should be killed for their speech. Dissent became betrayal, deserving punishment. When loyalty to their party eclipses loyalty to the republic, democracy corrodes. The system works only if people agree that rules apply even when they disadvantage their own side.

America's toxic partisan climate has cultivated a particularly dangerous mindset: the framing of political violence as a justified defensive action. Partisanship in the U.S. is no longer just disagreement over policy; it's an existential identity conflict. When your opponents are cast as "tyrants," "traitors" or "destroyers of the nation," violence becomes reframed not as aggression but as survival. The danger isn't abstract; it has already spilled into bloodshed. During a rally on July 13, 2024, then-Republican candidate Donald Trump was shot at during a speech. Trump was wounded non-fatally, with the shot grazing his ear. Shootings are becoming more common in radical America, and politicians and citizens alike must break the cycle.

American citizens should be loyal to the ideas on which their country was founded, rather than any democratic outcome. People can and will disagree on everything, but the rules of disagreement must remain civil.

Violence, Normalized: When Shootings Become Political Options

In America, deaths occur from a firearm almost 125 times per day, just over every 11 minutes. This has desensitized America to the gunfire that arises in the everyday lives of its citizens. This desensitization makes assassination just another news cycle, effectively turning it into a political tool. Political violence now feels like using the tools available to you, no longer crossing a moral chasm. Violence is seen as a justified consequence of attempting to maintain Second Amendment rights.

As radicalization found its way into real-world politics, it simultaneously began leaking into digital algorithms, guiding users from mainstream politics to conspiracy and eventually into violence. Surfing the web on today's internet makes coming across misinformation inevitable for billions of people every day, regardless of political allegiance.

Americans have developed a sense of learned helplessness in modern-day political arguments. Fatalism is the philosophical belief that events are fixed and inevitable, and that human beings are powerless to change them. This idea looms over the American people, perpetuating the notion that "nothing changes."

Leaders only add fuel to the fire. Violent jokes and rhetoric make violence feel not only inevitable but necessary. Threats, escalation and rage transform civil politics into a political war zone, breeding endless possibilities for real-world violence. America's leaders must take the first step toward re-moralizing political violence as the antithesis of a stable democracy.

Building Nonviolent Civic Engagement

America's political landscape urgently needs healing. The erosion of civic discourse demands concrete solutions that rebuild trust and legitimize nonviolent engagement. To move forward, citizens must embrace constructive approaches that channel political passion without crossing into dehumanization or violence. Protests should be disruptive but legal; they should confront issues without resorting to violence.

"No Kings" was a protest across the nation on June 14, 2025. Protesters marched through towns and cities protesting President Donald Trump. The protests were organized due to increasing authoritarian tendencies in the Trump administration. Protests occurred in more than 2,100 cities and towns across all 50 U.S. states in addition to U.S. territories. An estimated 5 million people joined in the protest, potentially making it the largest single-day protest in American history, right around the numbers of the Women's March of 2017.

Protests like the "No Kings" protest transform rage into democratic energy with the potential to turn despair into turnout, without threats or doxxing. There should be strict de-escalation, with the ejection of violence advocates. Likewise, the government should not interfere with a protest. People have a right to protest peacefully, protected by the First Amendment. Protests should evoke change in the government, addressing the needs and concerns that brought so many people together.

Americans must embrace constructive civic engagement that channels political passion while rejecting violence. Political disagreements should be expressed through democratic processes like voting, peaceful protests, and community organizing—not through intimidation or harm. The "No Kings" protests demonstrated how millions of citizens can effectively voice opposition while maintaining nonviolent principles.

Justice Through Legal Means: Executing the Shooter Undermines the Republic

America must not execute Charlie Kirk’s murderer, Tyler Robinson. The government should prioritize accountability and prevention measures over resorting to simple retribution through more killing. If the government executes Robinson, they are sending a message to the American people that killing is a solution to the world’s problems.

Robinson should receive life without parole, but executing him undermines the assassination entirely, leaving political issues unaddressed. The priorities must be reframed toward incapacitation, investigation, and reform. Executing the shooter is still political violence, and thus must be rejected.

An execution kills the investigation into the problem that the shooter seeks to prevent. Doing nothing about the issues that prompted the assassination is leaving America wide open for another assassination, just putting more people at risk. An assassination should prompt the government to recognize that change is needed, and it shouldn’t be brushed off.

Tragedy should highlight America’s weaknesses to be addressed. After the September 11 attacks, airport security was rigorously improved, and airline staff were trained in how to deal with an attack. The assassination should prompt this exact change, but the government may simply push the issue aside, leaving things just as they were.

Rebuilding America's Civic Spirit

America is not yet too far gone, and the government and its citizens must work together to restore the authenticity of the republic. Voting must be radically changed. The Electoral College allows the unpopular candidate to hold the most powerful position in the country, and this is not in the interest of the American people. It must be changed or abolished. Redistricting should happen independently, taking preventive measures against gerrymandering and rigging elections.

Citizens and politicians alike must accept outcomes, and if not, seek to change them within the laws of our democracy. Lies must be corrected, and all violence should be condemned and never be celebrated, physical or verbal. Disagreements shape policy, but arguments must never strip the humanity from the people representing millions.

America is not gone, but it must be saved, and this begins with each citizen committing to the principles that unite us rather than the differences that divide us. Rebuilding civic trust requires recognizing our shared humanity first and political differences second. It demands that we stand firmly against political violence in all its forms while creating spaces for passionate but respectful disagreement.

The path forward requires the courage to listen to those we disagree with, to hold our leaders accountable for inflammatory rhetoric and to reject the false comfort of demonizing those who see the world differently.

In the wake of Kirk's assassination, Americans face a defining choice: continue down the path of escalating hostility or reclaim the democratic tradition that values both vigorous debate and fundamental human dignity. The health of our republic depends on choosing the latter—not just in principle, but in our daily civic practice.