A deep-seated spiritual malaise and mental health crisis, not extreme or apocalyptic political rhetoric, explains the rash of political violence that has engulfed America.
The horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk, a 31-year-old conservative political activist, husband and father of two infant children, has ignited an intense debate about who and what is to blame for this latest act of political violence in America.
The right blames the left and the left blames the right, and both the left and the right blame political speech and debate, which supposedly has gotten too hot, too heavy, and too heated.
“We need to cool things down and lower the temperature,” say the statesmen on both the left and the right.
Sorry, but this is simply and empirically untrue. We Americans have always argued vigorously and passionately, and with military or martial metaphors that suggest an existential struggle between good and evil.
Political Rhetoric. “We stand at Armageddon and we battle for the Lord,” declared then former President Theodore Roosevelt on the eve of the 1912 Republican National Convention.
“Never before in all our history have these [moneyed] forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today,” intoned Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt in a 1936 address at Madison Square Garden. “They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.”
Yet despite our extreme or apocalyptic political rhetoric, political violence in America has been the anomaly and not the norm. Indeed, peaceful but passionate argument and debate has been the hallmark of American democracy.
What is different today is that we are in the throes of a deep-seated spiritual malaise and mental health crisis—aided and abetted by the Internet, smart phone and social media—that is giving license to horrific acts of political violence which span both the left and the right, and which target both the left and the right.
Political Violence. Consider, for instance, what we know about the assassins who murdered Charlie Kirk and Brian Thompson, the CEO of United Healthcare.
And consider what we know about the assassins who attempted to murder President Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, during the 2024 presidential campaign, and Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Arizona) in Tucson, Arizona, Jan. 8, 2011.
What do these assassins and would-be assassins all have in common? Four things stand out. There are four red flags or telltale signs, none of which are necessarily or inherently political.
Independently and in and of themselves, each of these red flags may not mean much. But when taken together, they can create a toxic mix and give rise to a demonic murderer ready to kill.
- First, the assassins and would-be assassins are young, inexperienced and immature men in their twenties. They are single and unmarried. Married middle-aged men with five children are not committing acts of political violence.
- Second, these men often live online and are immersed in the dark web, where they marinate in toxic, antisocial ideologies, which allow them to self-isolate and feed their neuroses and paranoia.
According to Utah Governor Spencer Cox, the Charlie Kirk assassin was submerged within the “deep, dark internet, the Reddit culture, and those other dark places of the Internet.”
The Brian Thompson assassin was not, it seems, involved in the dark web. However, he was heavily influenced by the “Unabomber” manifesto and became increasingly isolated from friends and family in the weeks and months leading up to his assassination of Brian Thompson.
- Third, these men are mentally ill and have a deep spiritual void. Some are sexually deviant, with decidedly non-traditional sexual proclivities.
The man who attempted to assassinate Rep. Giffords, for instance, was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. The Charlie Kirk assassin is reportedly involved in an intimate relationship with a biological male who is a transgender female, and the couple live together.
- Four, these men all seem to be very bright. The Brian Thompson assassin is an Ivy League graduate of the University of Pennsylvania. He majored in computer science and earned both a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree. The Charlie Kirk assassin scored in the 99th percentile on his ACT college entrance exam.
Clearly, the problem is not extreme or apocalyptic political rhetoric. The problem is external to politics, although it manifests itself in the political domain through acts of horrific violence against political actors or alleged political actors.
What, then, is to be done? Unfortunately, there are no quick or easy solutions to the rash of political violence that has engulfed America.
Gun control clearly won’t work. The Charlie Kirk assassin used a perfectly legal and commonplace bolt-action rifle.
But even if he had used an illegal firearm, there are an estimated 400 million to 500 million civilian-owned firearms in the United States. Even the most draconian gun control would never succeed at confiscating these weapons from the American people.
Given the sheer volume of firearms in the United States, assassins will get their weapons, gun control or no control.
Then, too, there are so-called “ghost guns” or 3D-printed firearms, such as the one used by the Brian Thompson assassin. Good luck trying to stop these weapons from being produced.
The only solution that I can see to this apparently endemic problem of young maladjusted men lashing out murderously is what Governor Cox wisely recommended: People need to get offline and connect on a directly personal and not virtual level.
Too many of us, especially too many of our young people, are wrapped up in our phones to the neglect of more meaningful and healthy personal relationships.
This means that if you know a young person who may be falling to the dark side, reach out to him. Establish a personal connection. Engage him in conversation or athletic activity. Your intervention may well save a life or lives.
It also means banning cellphone use in elementary and secondary schools. This to stop student isolation, loneliness and bullying, while encouraging student socialization, engagement and interaction.
I know this is a less than satisfactory answer. It doesn’t promise a clear, clean cut and decisive solution to a deeply worrisome problem. But not all deep-seated cultural problems are amenable to quick-fix public policy solutions, and the rash of political violence in America is one such problem.
The solution lies not in federal legislation, but with us, the American people. Each of us, individually and as a family unit, must act to create and affirm a culture of connection and community that will save our young men and prevent them from going to the dark side.
And we mustn’t limit or curtail political speech. Heated political argument isn’t the problem. We need more and better speech, not less. As Charlie Kirk wisely put it, “When people stop talking, that’s when bad things happen. That’s when violence happens.”
Talk more, not less. And talk directly—one-on-one, in groups and in-person—not online. Therein lies the only way to stop the rash of political violence that has engulfed America.
Feature photo credit: Charlie Kirk and Brian Thompson, courtesy of Nelson Griswald.
