Political violence adds tragic exclamation point to national divide

Following Charlie Kirk’s murder on September 10, political tension has spiked in a nation where partisan division has continuously expanded in virtually all aspects of American life. Unsurprisingly, political violence has appeared more prevalent in this tragic, new environment, capturing the spotlight and further dehumanizing the opposite side of the aisle. In a more rational age, political opponents could carry on discourse and debate strengthened policy and the fabric of the country. A short history lesson, however, illuminates a dangerous and ominous surge in violence as a response to political divide.  

In 2024 and 2025 alone, such incidents have been making headlines nationwide. In March, the New Mexico Republican headquarters was set on fire by arson; in April, a homemade explosive was thrown into the mansion of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s mansion; and in June, two Minnesota state lawmakers, Emerita Melissa Hortman and John Hoffman, were shot in their homes. Paul Pelosi, the husband of then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, was beaten with a hammer. Two assassination attempts on President Donald Trump occurred last year, both on the campaign trail and on private property.

It has become far too normalized to portray opposing ideological views as rigid and immoral, not worthy to be trusted with the strings to American society. The Carnegie Corporation of New York says it the best: “Increasingly in the United States, debate has been replaced by the assertion of immutable positions and the assumption of bad faith by the other side.” The United States has grown increasingly divided since the turn of the twenty-first century, contributing to the decline in bipartisanship. The boom of social media exacerbates this by perpetuating echo chambers, showing viewers only what they already see and know from sources they grow to trust. In a society where these echo chambers are culturally prevalent, it makes perfect sense why everyday Americans who hold differing viewpoints seem absurd and even dangerous. Regurgitated ideas portrayed in the media and across online platforms have changed the classical tradition of debate into something different. Keyboard warriors double-down on other keyboard warriors, which creates a warped version of debate lacking in the essential element of humanity and connection. A lack of traditional confrontation has fostered an environment of greater divide and fragile tolerance of differences. The best way to combat this? More exposure to a variety of ideas, not less. 

Any murder is unwarranted and unjust and tragic. This incident, among others of a similar nature, will continue to plague our nation until Americans begin rehumanizing individuals with opposing views and foster appreciation for debate and difference. Regardless of one’s views on Kirk, it was clear that he was a champion of free speech, open to answering questions from opposing viewpoints yet strong in his beliefs. It must not be forgotten that he was killed under a banner that read “Prove Me Wrong”, answering questions peacefully on a public campus, a place of education and critical thinking. Things will not change until American culture changes its outlook on speech: it is not inherently violent, but rather a unique opportunity to engage in civil discourse and debate with one’s peers. If America’s people cannot foster connections between their polarized political peaks and look beyond what they understand in their limited experience with those of the other side, they won’t have the society of individual freedoms that all citizens seem to desire. Civil war has broken out over less. 

by Phoebe Fletcher

Published October 6, 2025

Oshkosh West Index Volume 122 Issue I