Illustration by Lanah Kim & Diana Lopez
Co-Design Editor, Staff Illustrator
The rise of political violence in America
Story by Harriet Godson & Anna Mcdonnell
Staff Writers
Conservative political activist Charlie Kirk was recently shot and killed on his American Comeback tour at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. His death sparked outrage, sympathy, and celebration. In the aftermath, many began to question why nothing is being done to combat the dramatic rise in political violence in the United States over the last decade.
The horrifying reality is that this is not a standalone event of political violence in our country. The United States has a bloody history of political violence, including the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and many more.
In recent years, violence has dramatically risen against political figures and their supporters, including campaigners, staff, and political allies. From 2017 to 2021 alone, acts of domestic terrorism and violence toward prominent members of the political world rose by 275 percent, according to a study from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Additionally, according to PBS, “Nearly a third of Americans (30%) say people may have to resort to violence in order to get the country back on track.” While it makes up a small fraction of total violent crime, its impact is magnified by symbolic targets, media coverage, and timing.
Those who commit these crimes often consider how to maximize media coverage in order to broadcast their message to a wider audience. This is why political violence often targets influential people or places and often occurs at important events, rallies, or protests. During the 2024 election, almost half of all states reported threats against election workers, including doxxing, social media threats, and intimidation tactics such as burning ballot boxes in Oregon, Washington, and Arizona. Reasons for political violence vary, but they are all rooted in a common hatred of another person or group’s beliefs.
Currently, political violence is overwhelmingly perpetrated by right-wing extremists against those with beliefs that contradict their own, often resulting in death. According to PBS, right-wing extremists have been responsible for between 75 to 80 percent of U.S. domestic terrorism deaths since 2001. In comparison, left-wing extremists account for 10 to 15 percent of total political violence and less than 5 percent of fatalities. Additionally, many of the people who commit these violent crimes are not isolated individuals but members of organizations, including white supremacist groups, anti-abortion extremist groups, and other groups connected by mutual hate and cries for violence.
On June 14 of this year, Minnesota democratic leader Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark Hortman were shot and killed in their home in Minnesota. Hortman was the Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives as well as an active member in her community. Vance Boelter, the gunman, also attacked state senator John Hoffman and his wife; both sustained injuries but survived. Evidence from a manifesto found in his car, suggesting that he was also targeting abortion activists and other democratic politicians, shows that Boelter was politically motivated. Yet, when the news broke, their deaths received minimal coverage in the national media.
On January 6, 2022, a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol. They committed an act of domestic terrorism, injured approximately 140 officers, and forever scarred the peaceful transfer of power. President Donald Trump called it a “day of love,” according to NPR, highlighting how political violence is encouraged and praised even by leaders whose job is to protect the American people.
Political violence deepens the divide between the left and the right — when a major political figure is attacked, their supporters quickly respond by blaming the entirety of the other party. Their anger leaves no room for nuance and ignores the fact that political violence is most often the act of an extremist who does not represent the views of most people. It categorizes Americans into two exclusive groups, conservatives and liberals, speaking nothing of the extremists on either side, those who lie somewhere in the middle, those with strong but not violent beliefs, and those who have different views entirely.
This act of dehumanizing those with differing beliefs is what allows the violence to continue. As hate and anger build, it encourages more violence to ensue. Both politicians and the general public become so focused on blaming the “other” side that they ignore the real issues of the American people. As a result, violence has become an acceptable way to achieve political goals. Both the prevalence and normalization of violence toward government officials pose serious risks to democracy and society.
The only way to end this chain of tragedies is by making the active decision to have empathy for those affected and continue to humanize those one may disagree with. When individuals recognize political opponents as fellow human beings, they promote conversation rather than violence and abide by the basic building blocks of democracy.
Selective empathy and its unconscious hold over us
Story by Leighton Kwok
Staff Writer
With the assassination of political influencer Charlie Kirk, many have been conflicted about whether to mourn him and his legacy or to celebrate the demise of a man they vehemently disagreed with. With this confusion in mind, Kirk has been the hot topic of discussion for families, friends, and talk show hosts alike.
The immediate boom of coverage and disagreements on Kirk’s passing raised debate and questions about whether the public has lost its sense of empathy. Kirk himself said, “I can’t stand the word empathy … I think it’s made up, a new age term that does a lot of damage.” And yet, his death sparked widespread public mourning.
Empathy is defined as the ability to understand or share the feelings of others. But it is not only about sharing feelings; it is also about sharing a connection. It is about being able to put oneself in a friend’s shoes and let them know someone is there for them. It can be as small as congratulating a family member on a life milestone, or checking in on that friend taking 4 AP classes. It is not just saying sorry or pitying their situation, but showing compassion by seeing situations from their perspective, sharing their joy and love as well as their sorrow and confusion.
When tensions run high between two sides that have very different opinions, many people forget to empathize. Their empathy becomes selective. Selective empathy is the idea that compassion is only used when the subject is something or someone the individual favors. In the case of Charlie Kirk, many celebrated his death because of the beliefs he held publicly. Since they did not agree with him, they believed that he no longer deserved his voice.
Selective empathy is something that creeps in unexpectedly, or even unconsciously, creating an implicit bias. It creates a deep divide in social groups and dehumanizes people. Today, with the widespread use of social media like TikTok and Instagram, selective empathy happens more often than not, leaving people to define the humanity of others by just their ideas.
In the era of digital footprint, the image of a person that is put online is often heavily criticized, allowing most to judge within seconds, without even meeting the person on the other side of the screen. Too caught up in the idea of social media, we forget that social media pages are run by actual people, giving in to selective empathy.
Something posted years ago may not reflect a person now. Sometimes, a current post may depict a fake reality designed to hide what one is really feeling inside. The constant need for clicks lures many into the trap of selectively choosing when to give grace.
Things that are seen as more relatable and noteworthy, both on and off social media, get more attention, while other equally serious events get tossed to the side. This was shown when, on the same day of Charlie Kirk’s death, a school shooting at Evergreen High School in Colorado occurred, critically injuring two students. With reaction videos of Kirk’s assassination flooding social platforms, posts on the influencer’s death greatly outweighed those on the equally important and all too common devastation caused by school shootings like the Colorado event.
The following day, after the initial shock, this was proven again with the recognition of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Many, still focused on the current news, dismissed articles about the sorrow of 9/11 victims, a day when thousands of lives were lost. Selective empathy leads people to value only the news that they care about, rather than consider and respect all views.
When modern life is so fast that it is difficult to pay attention to what is going on in the lives of others, remembering to approach issues with empathy becomes harder and harder. Only seeing what is pushed out on phones creates a divide that must be healed. Respecting the life of a person, before their personal beliefs, opens the world to a new understanding of empathy by its real definition, the “getting in the mud with someone to acknowledge their feelings” type of empathy. It does not mean agreeing; it just means trying to understand.
Charlie Kirk’s death showed that many need to take a step back and recognize the loss of a human being, not the actions that he put into the world. Selective empathy is a slippery slope that disconnects simple communication with each other and tears our communities apart. Even if one does not agree with someone or anything that they stand for, showing respect for human life is a sliver of humanity we all need to embody.