The Killing of Charlie Kirk Is Part of a Terrible New Era of Political Violence

A homicide Charlie Kirk, a 31-year-old human rights activist who headed Turning Point USA, was horrified and upset in Utah. Kirk was deadly shot in his neck, talking at Utah -Val. His death was confirmed by President Donald Trump and others in a few hours. He was the father of two young children.

However, so shocking as the murder of Kirk, the fact that such an attempt, unfortunately, is not so unexpected. After all, America is thinking about violence, political or other, every day of the year.

Responding to the original firing messages, Jaome Raskin’s representative wrote: “Condemning another absolutely shameful act of violence with weapons.” The word “other” records the alarming truth: violence with weapons, whether in the form of school shootings or political violence, comes out of control in the United States. This violence is a product of a political system that refuses to implement weapons control, even as social fabrics.

We have known it a long time ago. Writing in The New York Times In June, Political analyst at Chicago Robert Pope times argued The fact that “from the beginning of the second term of President Trump in January, acts of political violence in the United States have been disturbing.”

Pape brought homicide Minnesota Melissa Hortman’s legislator and an attempt at one of his colleagues; a arson at the House of Governor Pennsylvania Josh Shapiro; and homicide Israeli Embassy staff in Washington, Colombia District. He also noted that this splash of violence, which began to polarize, which began with Trump’s candidacy in 2016, also appeared in the uprising of January 6, attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband and attempted Trump’s attempts among many other cases.

The Pope drew a gloomy picture of a society where political violence becomes much more common and socially accepted:

Today’s political violence takes place throughout the political spectrum – and there is an appropriate growth of public support both on the right. Since 2021, the Chicago project on security and threats I manage, quarterly conducted national polls to support political violence among Americans. These polls say because, as other studies have shown, the more public support exists for political violence, the more common.

Our skillful poll was the most disturbing. About 40 percent of the Democrats supported the use of force to remove Mr. Trump from the president, and about 25 percent of Republicans supported the use of the military to stop protests against Mr. Trump’s agenda.

Alternatively, this bloody cycle called for a two -party united front against political violence:

My research suggests that in order to de -escalate the political environment and reduce the risk of violence political leaders, America needs to cross its political events and make joint statements (and ideally joint speeches), which convey all political violence, welcome all peaceful protests and calls for the rules, process. (California Governor Gavin) Newsom and G -Trump, for example, must make such a joint statement.

This offer seems wildly utopic now. Trump is not a person to seek peace. In terms of political violence, it is arson, not a firefighter. He mock attack on Paul Pelosi and joke About the “people of the second amendment” followed by Hillary Clinton. He said hello on January 6 as heroes. It helps fuel violence in conflicts around the world, especially in the Middle East. And it leads the government that often lush in violent rhetoric against their enemies. There is every reason to think that as it did in the recent deployment of the National Guard in Los -Andgeles and Washington, Colombia, Trump uses Kirk’s murder to justify authoritarian repression.

In previous decades, political violence may push productive unity and seek solutions. After attempting to assassinate Ronald Reagan in 1981, a two -party coalition appeared in support Bill Brady 1993A measure of control of the weapon, named after the press -secretary of Reagan James Brad, who was paralyzed in the shooting. But the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan and James Bursy had a different orientation.

If, as expected, shooting from a pick is used as a pretext for greater repression, Trump’s political opponents should hold the border. Kirk’s murder was an atrocity that should be condemned without a reservation. But the Democrats should be prepared to withstand any pressure against civil liberties, not least because repression will only increase the likelihood of much worse violence.