On topic, I think this column resonates some:
Today's fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University comes just three months after Minnesota House Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman was assassinated in her home -- two leaders from different parties and opposing ideological perspectives, both silenced by acts of political violence. Kirk, the 31-year-old founder of Turning Point USA, was shot and killed while speaking at an event in Orem, Utah, while Hortman, a 55-year-old Democratic leader of the Minnesota House, was assassinated alongside her husband Mark in a politically motivated attack by a far-right extremist on June 14. The fatal shootings of Hortman and Kirk, a legislative leader and a political activist, are a stark reminder of how dangerous extremism and political animosity can become when left unchecked.
Kirk was addressing a crowd at his "American Comeback Tour" event when he was killed. The right-wing political activist, whose organization promoted conservative politics on college campuses, had become one of the most prominent voices in the conservative youth movement. Three months earlier, Vance Boelter, a far-right extremist disguised as a law enforcement officer, killed Representative Hortman and her husband, and seriously wounded State Senator John Hoffman and his wife Yvette. Authorities found a list in Boelter's vehicle containing nearly 70 potential targets, including abortion providers and Democratic lawmakers across multiple states. Both victims, Kirk and Hortman, represented the diverse range of political leaders now under threat.
The scope of this crisis cannot be ignored. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, between 2016 and 2025, there were 25 attacks and threats targeting elected officials, political candidates, judges and government employees that were motivated by partisan beliefs. For comparison, only two such incidents were reported in the two previous decades. The increase in partisan attacks spans the ideological spectrum but has done little to lower the temperature in political rhetoric.
Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, a Democrat whose home was attacked and set ablaze in April while his family slept inside, condemned today's tragedy in unequivocal terms: "Political violence has no place in our country. We must speak with moral clarity. The attack on Charlie Kirk is horrifying and this growing type of unconscionable violence cannot be allowed in our society".
The words and actions of our political leaders in the coming days will prove consequential. Lilliana Mason, Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University and co-author of "Radical American Partisanship: Mapping Violent Hostility, Its Causes, and the Consequences for Democracy," warns that how leaders respond to these attacks will determine whether violence escalates or subsides.
"It really does depend on how leadership frames it for their supporters," Mason said. "To the extent that leaders are framing this as something that needs to be retaliated against, I think that creates a huge opportunity for really bad things to happen. If the cycle of retaliatory violence gets started, it's really hard to stop it."
Yet even as leaders call for unity, the challenge remains addressing the rhetoric that experts say fuels such violence. In a speech after Kirk's shooting today, Trump declared that Americans and the media need to “confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree.” However, to many Americans, Trump's words ring hollow.
Trump has referred to political opponents as "vermin" that needed to be "[rooted] out"; called judges "monsters"; and, in a Memorial Day social media post, described those Americans who oppose his policies as "scum" and accused them of "trying to destroy our country." Trump's highly charged language explicitly demonizes his political opponents such as when he described them last October as an "enemy from within" that is "more dangerous than China, Russia, and all those countries."
His aggressive, divisive, and dehumanizing rhetoric toward those who disagree with him -- often labelling them as "enemies" and "traitors" -- is viewed by many experts as inflaming such extremism and contributing to the normalization of political violence. An analysis of Trump's speeches over the past ten years by UCLA political scientists found that not only has his use of violent language increased over time but that it surpassed that of nearly all other politicians studied from democratic countries.
In addition to his often extremist rhetoric, Trump has demonstrated a willingness to absolve acts of physical violence to advance his political interests. In a deeply troubling indication of his priorities, Trump made pardoning the January 6 attackers one of his very first acts upon returning to office. On his first day in office, Trump granted full pardons to all those convicted in the January 6 attack, over 1,500 rioters in total, including the 123 individuals charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to a police officer.
Equally concerning is how political violence, once unleashed, can become a pretext for authoritarian overreach. History shows that leaders with autocratic tendencies often exploit acts of political violence to justify crackdowns on civil liberties, suppress dissent, and consolidate power. From the Reichstag Fire that enabled Hitler's rise to emergency powers, to modern strongmen who use security threats to silence opposition and restrict press freedoms, political violence creates a cycle where democratic norms erode from both ends.
A recent study by political scientist James Piazza found that countries where politicians used hate speech 'often' or 'extremely often' experienced an average of 107.9 domestic terrorist attacks compared to just 12.5 attacks in countries where politicians rarely used such language. Republican lawmakers have largely remained silent about or defended such rhetoric, despite warnings from security experts about its potential to inspire violence.
There is no question of whether politicians across the spectrum will condemn today's violence; the question remains, however, if they will take steps to end such harmful rhetoric, especially the flames of discord emanating from the nation's highest office, that is helping to drive such violent extremism.
As individuals and as a nation, our "task now is to not let the people at the extremes pull the rest of us over the edge with them," Dr. Garen Wintemute, the director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis, urged in an interview today. "We need to make our rejection of political violence clear."
We wish strength and healing for Charlie Kirk's widow and his two children, as we do for Representative Melissa Hortman's two children who lost both parents just three months ago.
