If we are to remain the place the Founders hoped we would be, then we cannot ever treat such events as acceptable or deserved.
O n June 14, 2017, a shooter opened fire at the baseball field where colleagues and I were practicing for the Congressional Baseball Game. It was a horrible event. It could have been even worse. Though several were seriously injured, only the shooter died. We held him personally accountable for his actions.
However, since that day in 2017, both before and after Charlie Kirk’s murder on September 10, my perspective has evolved. We must look beyond the individual and ask deeper questions about our society, our values, and how overheated political rhetoric may be contributing to an environment where one, or many, could become convinced that Charlie’s death was justified. Charlie Kirk is just one of an increasing number of targets. We are seeing an environment where politics is regressing to a beastly form of human civilization. This is described in Federalist No. 1 as being dependent “on accident and force.”
Too many people now believe that some form of violence is acceptable to stop speech with which they disagree. Surveys over the past few years have found that up to almost half of students at some colleges believe this. And it’s not just college students. Surveys increasingly indicate that small but meaningful minorities — in a country of 330 million people — are open to violent action against political figures to silence those with whom they disagree. For too many, hatred has become the norm.
There appears to be a widespread loss of moral compass — a fading sense of right and wrong. Less drastic and noticeable breakdowns in civic trust — not talking to a neighbor with the “wrong” yard sign, cutting out relatives with the “wrong” opinions — are on the rise as well. The more insidious deviations from the normal course of politics — up to and including targeted assassinations — are, in one sense, separate from these things. We will always find disagreement with each other; that is what politics is about. But such drastic events draw strength and increase in frequency from the pervasiveness of this broader decline in trust.
Lost in partisan fury, too many Americans seem to have forgotten the value of gratitude for what America represents: a land of opportunity, a beautiful country, and a government that, through open and civilized debate, strives to “mend thine every flaw.” America was founded with a vision of freedom and governance by the people. That vision depends on free and fair elections entrenched in civilized debate.
When running for office, do your best, and if unsuccessful, accept the results and strive to improve for the next opportunity. In 2009, I ran for mayor of Cincinnati. The debates were civil. Though I lost, Mayor Mark Mallory appointed me to the Cincinnati Board of Health afterward. It’s an act of bipartisanship that seems unimaginable today. Now, for some, there is a troubling notion that losing at the ballot box must be followed by violence. Charlie Kirk’s death means that it isn’t only elected officials who are potential targets. Just being proximate to politics is enough to mark someone for destruction.
In our system of government, resorting to violence means straying from the recognized modes of political deliberation and targeting our fellow Americans, often as abstractions. Charlie Kirk was a young man with a wife and small children. He was a real person, not a caricature. The Republicans practicing on that baseball field were preparing for a charity event supporting youth sports. It was bipartisan. We were people with families who loved each other and loved our country. Steve Scalise, my colleague when I served in the U.S. House, was critically wounded in the attack. As a candidate seeking to return to the presidency, Donald Trump survived two assassination attempts. If some believe the stakes of any election justify such acts of violence, then we are leaving behind the civic habits that make self-government possible. Demonizing political opponents, reducing them to less than human, or portraying them as monsters motivates unstable individuals toward hate and violence.
Recently, in the small Ohio town of Hillsboro, I witnessed a protest where demonstrators carried signs that attacked President Trump personally rather than addressing policy. In this country, people remain free to hate anyone they like. But we are now at a point where that hate can curdle into something evil, something powerful enough to overwhelm the accepted channels for registering political disagreement.
We have freedom in this country. Saint Pope John Paul II, during his visit to America in 1995, stated, “Freedom consists not in doing what you will, but having the right to do what you ought.” When we fail to act as we ought, our freedoms are eroded, along with our virtues and values. If we are not careful, a violent tongue can become a weapon. It can break down the barriers that keep even fierce political disagreement within the bounds of a civilized society. Ever greater violence is the frequent result — a phenomenon now occurring with alarming regularity.
More restrictive gun laws are not the answer. As someone who has been shot at, I understand the concern about who should possess firearms. That conversation is worth having. But it does not address the root cause. Just look back to the 1950s. At that time, children brought guns to school for target practice and stored them in lockers. Besides, guns will not disappear. Murder is already illegal. Laws cannot stop those who lack moral integrity and possess sufficient twisted will. We must examine the factors that drive individuals to believe that murder is justified.
The past was not perfect. Indeed, in some ways, we may be returning to a more violent public life like what we witnessed in the 1960s and 1970s. But the best periods of our history were marked by a greater understanding of responsibility and of the difference between right and wrong. Unless we, today, examine the events and influences that shape individuals’ thoughts and feelings, making murder of innocent people seem justified, we will never solve the problem. And we will reenter a darker period — if we have not already.
Until we, as a society, look in the mirror and consider what has changed, we cannot hope for a solution. So: Is the problem a lack of faith, the breakdown of the family, or a sense of victimhood despite the opportunities available in America? Is it hateful angry rhetoric on social media? Has human life been devalued as never before? These questions are central to understanding the shift in behavior.
Fundamentally, we are witnessing a war against the American system of freedom and self-governance, founded by our forebears and enshrined in the Constitution. Today’s conflicts are not merely policy debates between political parties. There is a component of society at odds with the American system of great freedom, actively opposing the United States and its established values and principles.
Charlie Kirk, regardless of one’s agreement with his policies, was always open to civilized debate — the hallmark of the American way. Tragically, while engaging in this process, he was murdered to end the debate and silence his opinion. If we are to remain the place the Founders hoped we would be, then we cannot ever treat such events as acceptable or deserved. As Publius states in Federalist No. 1, for our politics to succeed, we must proceed based on “reflection and choice,” and we cannot accept such horrific events as normal.
Sadly, we will always have evil amongst us. I saw it firsthand on a baseball field eight years ago. We saw it in Utah last week. But ensuring that our politics keeps such evils at bay is up to us — every single one of us.