Political Violence: An Editorial

Political violence is defined as acts of terrorism by individuals or groups to display public distaste for opposing viewpoints. Typically, those committing such violent acts have an agenda or political goal in doing so. Whether they are world wars or individual conflicts, political violence has unfortunately proved itself to be very prevalent in history and does not show signs of stopping today. The most recent and prominent example of political violence was the Charlie Kirk shooting that occurred on September 10th, 2025. The right-wing political activist was shot while making an on-campus appearance at Utah Valley University. Immediately, social media sparked controversy surrounding the assassination. Some mourned the death of the 31-year-old, while others expressed their widely differing views with Kirk. Differences in political opinions strongly contributed to the quite strong reactions expressed by individuals online.

I strongly believe that this expression of political violence is less about politics and more about ethics. When I discuss ethics, I am referring to morality or behaviors that are typically regarded as good or bad. In this case, I believe that supporting political violence is no better than the act of committing political violence itself. To be clear, this opinion does not only apply to Charlie Kirk’s assassination but also large-scale political violence such as those led by oppressive governments. We are living in a world that wants to censor beliefs and quickly shut down opinions without the opportunity for debate. When I refer to debating, I am not referring to the idea of winning an argument, but rather open-mindedness between and among parties. While this may seem contradictory, the idea behind debates is to express one’s beliefs and support it with evidence in hopes of persuasion. However, effective debate requires the participants and the audience to consider every statement or idea expressed, even if that means not agreeing with the opposing party at all. Either way, the ideas behind debates exemplify the first amendment of the United States Constitution, the freedom of speech. This is significant to the context of political violence, especially when considering the long-lasting impacts such conflicts bestow upon the future of humanity.

Political violence not only contributes to censoring politicians or activists, but also to children. This is because political violence becomes more than politics; it unfortunately serves as an example of the cruelty that an individual may be faced with when on the opposing end of a disagreement. Allowing politics to reach this amount of discourse and determine life or death is precisely why people are less likely to share their opinions. Therefore, political violence unfortunately teaches our youth that disagreements are dangerous and should be avoided. However, without differences in opinions and disagreements, there will be no advancement in our country moving forward. We cannot rely on constant agreement and consensus to survive. This not only goes for politics but also science, mathematics, the medical field, creative pursuits, and innovation. As a society that runs on humans, functional stagnation and lack of creativity will not serve the future well.

Now that a societal implication of political violence has been identified, let us not forget the human side of political violence. It is a simple concept, yet a struggle for many to grasp when dealing with politics. It is the idea that we are all humans with families and loved ones, regardless of our political opinions. Contrary to widespread belief, empathy is not an on and off button, used whenever it is most convenient. Instead, empathy is a concept that individuals should constantly strive to achieve even in challenging contexts, in this case, politics. Regardless of the political party, group, or organization we adhere to, we are of the same species. We are all human. If this statement appears to imply that humanity is more important than political opinion, then that is the correct interpretation. Humanity is our foundation while politics and social life are merely building blocks that have bolstered themselves off humanity. While, yes, these building blocks are crucial, we cannot disregard the foundation nor sacrifice it. After all, without the foundation, in this case, humanity, our building blocks or politics would also crumble.  

While this interpretation may appear philosophical, it is currently in effect without many being aware of it. There are solutions. The most effective solution is to lead by example. This solution implies that current politicians, everyday adults, and those in powerful positions hold the responsibility of demonstrating the benefits of differing opinions. Classroom learning may appear to be another effective method; however, it does not compare to education from real life events. We must make it a safe world to ethically argue and debate if our hope is for our country to succeed.