The
Guardian view on the killing of Charlie Kirk: a perilous moment that may lead
to more
Editorial
The
shooting of the Turning Point USA co-founder should not be used to foment
further division in a polarised country
Thu 11
Sep 2025 18.57 BST
“Democracy
is the way that we have diverse societies that don’t kill each other, largely,”
Lilliana Mason, a leading scholar of partisanship, observed recently. She
added: “As soon as we stop believing in it, it disappears.” Dr Mason’s own
research suggests that there is sharply rising tolerance of political violence.
On Wednesday, it claimed one more victim.
The
shocking killing of the co-founder of Turning Point USA Charlie Kirk, a hugely
influential activist who rallied young people to Donald Trump’s cause and
far-right ideology more broadly, has been widely and rightly condemned across
the political spectrum. Leading Democrats and progressive activists made clear
that such violence must not be tolerated.
Before a
perpetrator had even been identified, the president, like several other
Republicans, blamed “radical left political violence”, claiming that liberal
rhetoric against conservatives was “directly responsible for the terrorism that
we’re seeing in our country”. Mr Trump himself faced two attempts on his life
last year. He cited other victims, but not the many Democrats who have been
targeted, including Melissa Hortman, the Minnesota state representative shot
dead at her home alongside her husband, Mark, in June. Meanwhile, some
far-right commentators spoke of vengeance.
Political
violence is hardly a new phenomenon in a country that has seen a civil war,
four presidential assassinations, and lynchings. But it is rising again.
Ordinary Americans are being radicalised. In such an environment, one thing
unites the political poles; any prominent figure is vulnerable, though women
and people of colour are particularly targeted. Threats to members of Congress
rocketed last year.
“Demonising
those with whom you disagree” is indeed dangerous, but Mr Trump himself has
normalised vicious attacks on opponents. The tolerance of violent action – as
with Mr Trump’s blanket pardons for the January 6 rioters – sends a message
too. The roots of violent acts are complex, but an environment conducive to
political attacks may channel the propensities of potential perpetrators.
Robert Pape, director of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats, has
warned that US politics may be on the brink “of an extremely violent era … The
more public support there is for political violence, the more common it is.”
The US addiction to guns drastically increases the impact.
Acts of
political violence exact an appalling human toll in lives lost and families
shattered; Mr Kirk’s death leaves two small children fatherless. But they also
– by design – deter other people from political or other civic activity at all
levels. The most extreme voices may persist and prevail. Blaming political
adversaries before a perpetrator has even been identified risks fuelling anger
and attacks, to everyone’s cost. Research by Dr Mason, of Johns Hopkins
University, and Nathan Kalmoe, of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, found
that a fifth of respondents said political violence could sometimes be
justified, but three-fifths thought it could sometimes be justified if the
other side committed violence first.
Yet other
research notes that people appear less willing to condone violence if
misperceptions of the other side’s extremism or propensity for force are
corrected. In this perilous moment, the response to such hateful crimes should
be to coalesce to stress non-violence and civic tolerance. To instead promote
division will only increase the threat to politicians and activists of all
stripes, and strike another blow to democracy itself.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário