Staff Reports
In the aftermath of the shooting that left conservative activist Charlie Kirk injured, reactions from across the political spectrum have highlighted once again the troubling state of civil discourse in America. Rather than uniting around a condemnation of political violence, many voices on the left used the tragedy as an opportunity to engage in ideological attacks. Instead of offering sympathy and calling for peace, some commentators implied that Kirk’s political views were to blame, signaling a disturbing acceptance of violence against those who dare to hold conservative beliefs.
One of the most glaring examples came from political analyst Matthew Dowd, who faced backlash for his comments following the attack. While networks quickly moved to distance themselves from Dowd, his response was to double down, blasting his former employer and accusing them of bowing to what he derisively called “right-wing outrage.” This refusal to acknowledge the inappropriateness of his remarks reveals a troubling double standard: if a liberal activist had been targeted, the media narrative would have been one of total outrage, calls for justice, and sweeping condemnations of hate-fueled rhetoric. But when the victim is on the right, the commentary seems all too willing to excuse or even justify political violence.
The broader message being sent by these reactions is alarming. By treating violence against conservatives as somehow warranted, left-leaning media outlets and commentators are normalizing hostility against half the country. When speech crosses the line into dehumanizing rhetoric—suggesting that the victim “had it coming” because of his political stance—the seeds of justification for political violence are planted. The question Americans must ask themselves is whether we are truly comfortable with a society where targeted attacks based on ideology are met with shrugs, smirks, and political exploitation.
At the same time, the response in many communities around the nation shows that ordinary Americans still understand what decency looks like. In places like Utah, people prayed for Kirk’s recovery, gathering to support his family and stand against violence without conditions. This underscores an important truth: while elite commentators inflame division from television studios and Twitter feeds, regular citizens are capable of rising above the bitter rhetoric and offering compassion, even to those they disagree with politically. That kind of unity is the real antidote to the poisonous tribalism promoted by much of the media.
The shooting of Charlie Kirk and the response to it paint a stark picture of the cultural divide in this country. Too many in positions of influence treat ideological opponents not as fellow citizens, but as enemies to be destroyed—by words if not by bullets. If we are to preserve a nation rooted in free speech and civil disagreement, Americans need to call out this moral decay for what it is. Violence cannot become a political tool, and excusing it when it targets conservatives is every bit as abhorrent as committing the act itself. Until the left acknowledges this, their calls for tolerance will ring hollow.
