Charlie Kirk. Melissa and Mark Hortman. Though the names change, patterns remain the same. Instances of political violence increasingly dominate headlines and social media.
Political violence, regardless of conflicting views which embody our modern era, cannot be justified. That anger and frustration must be channeled within the democratic process.
Political violence refers to the acts of harm or intimidation motivated out of political beliefs, according to Dino Bozonelos, a lecturer for California State University, San Marcos. Most of the time it is used to influence power or silence opposition, which can target public officials, activists or ordinary citizens across the political spectrum.
From duels and mob attacks in the 18th century to the assassinations of the 20th century—notably former presidents John F. Kennedy and William McKinley, as well as civil rights leaders Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X—said actions have undeniably shaped politics.
Many who resort to violence believe they are advancing justice or protecting their communities, creating what is known as the Activist’s Dilemma: pushing for change through extreme or disruptive action, compromising one’s or a group’s moral authority in the process.
However, attacking single individuals doesn’t dismantle the institutions and systems. As well-oiled machines, they will continue their violence until collective action stops them.
To initiate collective action, we must engage in empathetic dialogue that recognizes our differences while challenging the narratives of domination that produce our struggles.
Fact-checking authority-given information across multiple sources, identifying personal interests that may have influenced how situations are presented and investigating media censorship can help us construct informed counternarratives that allow us to connect with one another.
Assuming someone’s morals and values from their political beliefs kills empathy. We owe it to our shared humanity to talk across political divisions and classrooms, especially when it is uncomfortable or starts off with disagreement.
The most important thing is to have the right intention, as these discussions shouldn’t be treated as a debate with a winner. Then, ask open-ended questions and listen closely while asking follow-up questions.
By approaching disagreement with curiosity, not judgment, we actively remind ourselves that every perspective is shaped by a personal history just as valid as our own.
It’s not us versus them. It’s us versus the systems of oppression that deny anyone their right to safety, dignity and happiness. Our freedoms aren’t trade-offs; the future is built on solidarity. This is a fight for all of us.
