Recent weeks have seen a surge of discussion surrounding political violence following the assassination of right-wing commentator Charlie Kirk. I have had conversations with students on Grounds who knew him personally and appreciated his work, along with a fair number who never aligned with his views. However, the graphic and violent nature of his death has left everyone shocked and wondering if this act was a one-off or a continuation of a disturbing new trend in American politics. The Blue Ridge Center, which aims to supplement conversation on political subjects to round out UVA students’ education, hosted a discussion attempting to answer this question. Attended by around 50 students, Professors Gerard Alexander and Dan May opened the talk with a series of three poignant assertions.
Professor Alexander’s first claim was that people, and especially the media, often mischaracterize the shooters who carry out violent acts. Headlines will often portray a perpetrator in an either-or sense – either they were motivated by perfectly political motivations, or they were so mentally ill that their motivations are superfluous. In reality, shooters like the one of Charlie Kirk do not fall perfectly into a political camp, and rarely fully belong to one. Most are also not so mentally deranged as to be insane. Professor Alexander pulled from several examples, including the murderer of two Minnesota state representatives and a would-be assassin of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. He claimed these people are proof that actors of political violence are often drawn to it because of a mixture of fringe ideas, questionable mental health, and a collapsing personal circle. To act like a single reason, like political affiliation, is some sort of catch-all answer is both disingenuous and unhelpful in identifying those who exhibit red flags.
Professor Alexander also pointed out society’s increasing polarization as an exacerbating factor. If news stories lead us to constantly jump to catastrophic conclusions about the ill intent of the other side, more and more people who spiral will find themselves in silo mentalities, which can lead to violent choices. Finally, Professor Dan Moy used some startling statistics to illustrate America’s slow slide toward acceptance of political violence. Citing a study by Robert Pape of the University of Chicago, Moy pointed out how an increasing number of middle and upper-class citizens on both sides of the political spectrum now claim that political violence can be acceptable in certain cases.
A question-and-answer session followed the opening speeches. A common theme emerged — how do we maintain free speech when there is an increasing number of people who have opinions we consider unfounded in political dialogue? Both Professor Alexander and Professor Moy acknowledged the issue and believe that those who celebrate the death of people like Charlie Kirk, or the Minnesota lawmakers killed back in June, should face criticism. Yet they continually returned to one point — a sort of challenge to students — to avoid silencing even those on the most extreme ends. Professor Moy made a particularly powerful point about how, oftentimes, the political climate of our country can make it seem like we are entering a catastrophic era. However, instead of dwelling on that, Professor Moy implored students to maintain friendships, dialogue, and healthy personal connections with those we both agree and disagree with to heal the dangerous issue of polarization from the ground up.
However, a handful of students still questioned the idealized world in which our friendships and connections can somehow turn the tide on this increase in violence. In perhaps the most important takeaway from the talk, Professor Alexander conceded that our own singular actions simply don’t have the power to turn back national trends. Using a historical approach, he claimed that the American political system goes through a certain ebbing and flowing of polarization and violence — just think about the bloodshed of the Civil War and the 1960s. In our current situation, it is through leaning on the values that have held us through before, the Professors claimed, that citizens can muster the fortitude that will inevitably bring us through again.
Leave a Reply