America’s growing crisis of political violence can no longer be ignored. In just over a year, we have witnessed the assassinations of Democratic Congresswoman Melissa Hortman, conservative activist Charlie Kirk, and the attempted assassination of President Donald Trump. The increasing number of target officials reveals a dangerous shift in the mentalities of many: silencing someone by force is becoming a substitute for debate.

This isn’t the country the Founding Fathers envisioned. From the ratification of the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to speak freely, America has valued communication over coercion, even when it’s controversial or offensive. Our democracy wasn’t built to eliminate disagreement; that was always the mission of authoritarian regimes. Instead, ours was built to protect disagreement, allowing citizens to engage in debate with reason rather than violence. Every act of political violence deteriorates that precedent, eroding the foundation of our country.

There has been data supporting the fact that these assassinations aren’t just isolated incidents. A 2024 study from the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that since 2016, the United States has experienced nearly triple the number of partisan-driven attacks and plots compared to the previous twenty-five years. This surge reflects a culture where violence has become a viable, even celebrated, political tool. 

Social media has deepened our country’s recent fracture. Platforms reward outrage and controversy because they capture attention; meanwhile, more rational and nuanced perspectives are buried. This, combined with the widespread adoption of a passive “news finds me” (NFM) mentality, where people rely on the algorithm for news instead of doing independent research, causes many to become solely exposed to a single political viewpoint. 

In this narrow environment, people shift towards actively seeking validation instead of truth; they scroll not to learn, but to gather ammunition. People hunt for information that confirms their side and discredits the other, causing quotes to be taken out of context and weaponized. As a result, human beings, particularly political activists, are being turned into symbols of hate and villainy.

It’s sickening to see people celebrating violence against those whose views are unpopular, which the murder of Charlie Kirk chillingly revealed. Social media was flooded with celebrations and accusations of him being a white supremacist, a racist, and a fascist. Too often, his (and other politicians’) words were ripped out of context, portraying him as someone he wasn’t.

For example, critics pounced on Kirk’s line that “[he couldn’t] stand the word empathy” as proof of his hatred and as a justification for his death. But in context, Kirk was arguing that empathy could cloud judgment and that sympathy—acknowledging the pain of others and choosing to care, instead of sharing their feelings—led to a more actionable society. Twisting that argument into evidence of heartlessness was dishonest. Kirk and other political figures did not deserve to be dehumanized, much less killed.

To preserve our nation, we must draw a clear distinction that political violence is never acceptable, especially in a democratic society like America. Those who seek victory with bloodshed instead of persuasion and reason demonstrate the surrender of our country’s core values.

We can disagree without dehumanizing.

We can debate without destroying.

We can stand firm in both our convictions and justice for those who oppose us.

And instead of silencing others, we can honor and seek truth together.

May Charlie Kirk, Melissa Hortman, and every victim of this crisis of political violence rest in peace.