I believe that Republicans and Democrats are voting for some of the same reasons and share the same fears. I will provide some polling on some of these, less policy-focused beliefs that are deepening the divide, creating hatred, and leading to political violence. However, I will, primarily, be talking about the tragic killing of Charlie Kirk, what this means for our country, how some leaders are promoting change, and what solutions have been tried and continue to fail.
I voted for Kamala Harris for the same reason many people supported Trump; across the aisle, people share a concern for our Democracy. This concern is directed at the other, whether that is the Democrat or the Republican. This, to whatever extent it decided votes, was something Americans (Democrat or Republican) were/are feeling. In a poll conducted by the American Psychological Association (APA), 77% of respondents cited the future of our country as a significant source of stress, 72% expressed concern that the election would lead to violence, and 55% believed the election could end Democracy.
If Republicans are disproportionately engaging in political violence, the discussion should focus on “Why do Republicans feel fearful?... What is being said that is driving this fear?... and why do they believe violence is necessary, and necessary for what ends?” I question the purpose of debating whether Kirk is an objectionable or hateful figure. This is relevant when discussing how we should conduct our debates and create an open dialogue: whether TurningPoint or ChangeMyMind (debates he had with college students) curbed political division or deepened partisan resentment. The conversation about political violence, though, is not about hatred. This may have motivated the killer, but people supporting this assassination, or Republicans who justified or supported the plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer, or the assault that left Paul Pelosi with a skull fracture, are the deleterious effects of fear; this is evident, as most speakers, politicians, or college students pair their “justifying” or sometimes “celebratory” statements with the claim that the act is defending against a threat.
Unfortunately, the President has decided to fan the flames, rather than promote unity. Donald Trump claimed that, on January 6th, he offered Nancy Pelosi 10,000 troops, which carries the implication that Democratic leadership strategically supports political violence, and when asked about healing the country, he said he “couldn’t care less.” Jesse Waters' Primetime has an audience of 4.1 million viewers, likely more on the day of the assassination. Jesse monologued, telling his viewers that, “If guys like Charlie are targets for assassination, we all are.” This is another example of engaging with the same fear that is driving the disturbing trend of political violence and support for political violence.
Utah Governor Spencer Cox is presenting a productive message. After revealing the details of the investigation into the murder of Kirk, he asked the audience to listen, and he stressed, “words are not violence—violence is violence.”
Cox is not the only one, nor the first, to point out this dynamic, and attempts have been made to address the problem, but it continues to worsen.
A report by the Chicago Project on Security and Threats polled 5,000 college students; in free-response questions, Jewish students stated their perception that pro-Palestinian rhetoric, including the chant “From the River to the Sea,” is endorsing violence against Jews; Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib argued that this statement is “for peaceful coexistence,” and that “conflating anti-Israel sentiment with antisemitism” is silencing pro-Palestinian voices; Muslim students reported the same concerns for their safety, and expressed a similar sentiment to Tlaib—that increased hostility toward Muslims is the result of the association of Palestinian rhetoric with antisemitic violence. In these cases, Israelis are associating pro-Palestinian rhetoric with the rise in anti-Jewish violence, and Muslims are reporting that this belief about their rhetoric is endangering their personal safety or increasing anti-Muslim attacks; many Muslims have also contended that support for Israel directly perpetuates violence against Palestinians.
This issue, on and off college campuses, is particularly pertinent in the debate over whether speech should be treated as violence. However, this is only the latest iteration of the “student-speech conflict.” Universities have tackled this exact issue for many years, and some administrators have adamantly defended speakers and speech perceived as endorsing violence. For example, the Former President of Berkeley University hosted a Free Speech Week, invited speakers such as Anne Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos, and spent $3.9 million on security; the threats continued to pour in, the speakers withdrew, and the event fell apart. In other cases, colleges have been too weak in this conviction. The University of Buffalo extended a speaking engagement to Michael Knowles (a political commentator, accused of calling for a “genocide” of transgender people), stating that “UB must uphold the principles of the First Amendment, and cannot disallow student groups from inviting controversial speakers.” The University initially banned the student organization that requested the speaker, and was promptly swept into litigation; the policy, as it now stands, requires recognized student groups to “forfeit their rights to legal actions against the school.”
However, while many universities have properly diagnosed this problem, their advocacy for open discourse and attempts to combat distrust and fear have failed to address the issue, and the wedge between students continues to divide campuses and suppress communication over most contentious issues, especially political divergence from the norm, and, recently, the War in Gaza.
The trend of political violence and extreme beliefs about the dangers of the other side poses an existential threat to our democracy. The President, many political leaders, and some of the most listened-to newscasters are leveraging these tragedies for engagement. Other leaders, like Governor Cox, spotlight the issue of conflating speech with violence, but attempts to combat this pattern, such as Brown’s Free Speech Week, continue to fail, and the problem continues to worsen.
Luke Harris is a Fall Intern with the Fulcrum.
The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.
