Tonight I am wondering about the direction of the country I grew up in and fought for.

The Dangers of Political Violence and the Urgency of Cooler Heads


The assassination of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University is a chilling reminder of how fragile our civic fabric has become. Political murder is a line no society can cross without unraveling. Today’s tragedy has drawn universal condemnation from across the political spectrum—a rare point of unity in our divided nation. It should serve as a moment of reckoning: we can vehemently disagree, but disagreement must never spill into bloodshed.

The Weaponization of Language

For years, our political discourse has grown increasingly toxic. Opponents are no longer just wrong—they are labeled “Hitler,” “fascist,” “traitor,” or “terrorist.” This kind of dehumanizing rhetoric does more than score political points; it corrodes the boundaries of what is acceptable in public life. Once someone is branded as pure evil, compromise is unthinkable. In that framework, elimination—not debate—becomes the logical next step.

Ethical and Philosophical Framing

We’ve all heard the ethical thought experiment: Would you kill baby Hitler? It is a dilemma precisely because Hitler, as a baby, had not yet committed his atrocities. The weight of morality lies in punishing someone for what they might become, not what they’ve done. Yet when political opponents are casually equated with Hitler, the dilemma vanishes. Violence becomes framed as righteous and necessary. History shows us that authoritarian regimes always began by labeling their opponents as “vermin,” “traitors,” or “enemies of the people.” We should be alarmed by echoes of that language in our own politics.

Rising Tide of Political Violence

Charlie Kirk’s assassination is not an isolated event. In recent years, we’ve witnessed a troubling rise in politically motivated attacks:

The 2017 shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise,  during a congressional baseball game.

The 2022 hammer attack on Paul Pelosi , husband of then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The attempted assassination of Donald Trump during the heated 2024 election cycle.

Threats against judges, governors, and members of Congress increasing year over year.


The FBI and Department of Homeland Security have repeatedly warned that political violence is on the rise. Each incident deepens the cycle: one side cites the other as justification for further escalation. If left unchecked, this spiral threatens to destabilize the very democracy both sides claim to defend.

Media and Public Discourse Responsibility

The media and social platforms cannot be absolved of responsibility. Outrage is profitable, and algorithms reward anger over nuance. When every election is framed as an existential struggle between good and evil, or “democracy versus fascism,” the result is predictable: some will take those words literally. This is not limited to one network or one ideology. Both mainstream and alternative outlets too often fuel outrage, stoke division, and strip away the humanity of political opponents. If our national conversation is framed as a war, we should not be surprised when real bullets are fired.

Message of Unity and Call to Restraint

Despite our differences, Americans across party lines have condemned Kirk’s killing. That bipartisan unity proves one thing: most of us, left or right, agree that political murder cannot stand. This should be a turning point. We need cooler heads to prevail. Leaders must tone down their rhetoric. Media must prioritize context over sensationalism. And citizens must remember that empathy, even toward those we oppose, is the foundation of a functioning democracy.

Personal Note

I felt compelled to write this article not just as a citizen, but as a father. My youngest son—who I didn’t even realize had been engaging with Charlie Kirk’s content—told me he was watching one of his videos not too long ago. Now that same figure is gone, assassinated for his beliefs. The shock in my son’s voice underscored the human cost of political violence. It is not abstract. It ripples into our homes, shaping how our children see politics, discourse, and the very possibility of dialogue without fear.

Conclusion

Charlie Kirk’s death is a tragedy—not only for his family and supporters, but for the nation as a whole. One can disagree passionately with his politics while still mourning the loss of a fellow American cut down for his beliefs. Political violence is not the answer; it is the end of democracy. If we allow assassination and terror to replace debate, then we are not choosing a better future—we are abandoning the American experiment itself. For me, as a father, the loss resonates even deeper. When my son sees someone he watched online gunned down for his beliefs, it sends a chilling message about the world he’s inheriting. That is why this moment must serve as a turning point: to show our children that we can disagree fiercely without destroying one another, and to prove that America still has the capacity for reason over rage.

MicG