American civic culture is severely wounded. Our politics are broken. Political tension in the U.S. has always ebbed and flowed–the 1960s and 1970s were marked by deep divisions on issues such as civil rights and race or the war in Vietnam–and America has never had a deficiency of political thought leaders who speak with a unique fervor, but Americans have not been as vitriolic in their disagreements as we are now. The temperature has reached a boiling point, and our political and civic culture has not been as endangered as it is now since the Civil War and the era of Reconstruction. It is a civic culture marred by hyperpartisanship, a growing dissatisfaction with our way of governance, and a rise in political violence. Violence–and the normalization of violence–is sending America on a course toward a Reign of Terror.
In his first inaugural address, President Lincoln, urging the South to avoid taking up arms against the federal government, said, “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection… The mystic chords of memory… will yet again swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.” The month following the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln, Confederate forces fired upon Fort Sumter, South Carolina, marking the official start of the Civil War. Our better angels failed to prevail, and the United States was thrown into four years of civil discord, brother against brother. Americans were literally turned enemies, half of the nation in active and deadly rebellion against the other.
We are blessed to have not been placed in a situation as grave as the Civil War, but to say that Americans of different political factions view fellow Americans of different persuasions as enemies is not an exaggeration. Our political discourse is at a boiling point, with both sides to blame, and it is endangering lives. While it is easy for one to place blame solely on those they disagree with, this is simply dishonest.
Elected officials have been attacked in their own homes. In Minnesota, Vance Boelter stalked state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, killing both of them in their home. Five miles away, state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife were also shot and were fortunate to have survived. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro was in the Governor’s mansion in Harrisburg when Cody Balmer threw two Molotov cocktails into the residence where Mr. Shapiro, his wife, and his four children were sleeping after Passover dinner.
Following a gathering for the American Jewish Committee’s Young Diplomats reception, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim – a young couple preparing to begin a life together – were shot and killed by Elias Rodrgiuez. Their offense? Merely being Jewish. The shooter targeted the event because those in attendance were Jewish, although Mr. Lishchinsky was a Christian, and he opposed the existence of the State of Israel. These were three people – a man and woman in love and one man radicalized by toxic rhetoric– none of whom held elected office, but whose paths crossed in a cowardly act of violence.
This is certainly not an exhaustive list. Acts of political violence are becoming increasingly more common; so much so that they are mere blips on our radar. It seems like ages ago that a gunman targeted Republican members of Congress during practice in Virginia for the annual Congressional baseball game; it has hardly been a decade since that attack. It was only three years ago that Paul Pelosi was attacked in his own home. President Trump was the victim of attempts against his life, most notably an assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, months before the 2024 election. For the victims and their families, these attacks are harrowing and unforgettable. To those whose experience is through chyrons and social media, they are stories doomed to be buried in the next news cycle.
The most recent act of political violence happened in an environment that should exist, in part, to foster intellectual and political dialogue. On September 10, 2025, Mr. Kirk was visiting Utah Valley University as part of his “The American Comeback Tour,” where he invited students who disagreed with him to ask questions and engage in a debate about hot-button political and cultural issues. During a discussion with one attendee, tragically, regarding gun violence, Mr. Kirk was shot in the neck by a gunman on the roof of an adjacent building. Mr. Kirk had garnered a massive following of young conservatives and held a strong influence with Republican lawmakers; he was, undoubtedly, one of the most prominent conservative activists in recent years. Mr. Kirk had critics on both the left and the right; he once stated “my job every single day is actively trying to stop a revolution.” Condemnations for his killing came from figures across the political spectrum, but his assassination was not universally condemned. It is inexcusable to justify his killing, and it is emblematic of deeper cultural rot and a lack of humanity.
We have become a society that fetishizes the idea of vengeance; it is a fetish that begets more violence and corrupts the soul. People derive joy from the thought of violent revolution, hoping that from the ashes of a ruined society, their own ideology will rise to power. Political majorities seeking to exact revenge against perceived enemies and suppress dissent can lead to a terrible cycle of violence. While there are aspects of French culture we may appreciate—cuisine, art, music, etc—the Reign of Terror should not be one.
We have seen that one is immune to acts of political violence; one does not need to be an elected official to have one's life and property threatened. These cowardly actions are a sign that something has gone amiss in America’s political discourse. We should not and cannot settle our disputes with violence, and we should not be so naive as to suggest that everyone is immune from radicalization.
America is not faced with a political, moral, or cultural dilemma as divisive as slavery. This is not to say that there are not Americans who fear or face marginalization; that Congress is not debating weighty policy decisions; or that there are not matters abroad that demand our immediate attention, but current debates about policy disagreements we hold are not as critical to the fabric of our nation as those who seek to further divide us would admit. We must not be blinded by passion.
The root of our current civil discord is the hyperpartisanship that has firmly gripped every branch of government, at every level, and our electoral system. Far too many Republicans and Democrats view the opposing side as their enemy. While Republicans and Democrats may disagree, we should be united behind common principles: fidelity to the Constitution, equal justice under the law, and liberty. Instead, America’s leaders act more as though they have sworn an oath to a political party or a party leader than to the law of the land; those in power may view dissidents as not merely opponents to their political and electoral ambitions, but as literal enemies of the United States. When one party believes devoutly that they carry the best interests of the nation at heart, they will naturally view opponents as enemies. The reality is that both parties believe in forming that “more perfect Union.” Their disagreement is on the means to do so, but that does not make them enemies.
How then do we begin to “bind the wounds of division?” First, we must talk to each other. Americans from all walks of life and of every political persuasion must engage with those who are different from themselves and who think differently. An honest, rational conversation about problems that rightfully impassion oneself may serve to broaden one's understanding, help one to be more emotionally mature, and lead to a more intellectual discussion. By existing in an echo chamber, those who do so run the risk of making those who are different from themselves “others.” There are no Republicans and “other Americans,” and there are no Democrats and “other Americans.”
Suggesting we converse ourselves out of the present crisis does, admittedly, seem naive. Charlie Kirk, despite any disagreements one might have with him, was doing things the right way; Mr. Kirk had founded an organization to empower young conservatives to find a sense of community and articulate their values through his organization, Turning Point USA. Mr. Kirk went to a college campus–a part of America where center-right and conservative perspectives are drowned–to engage in discussions with the student body. These conversations were messy; they did not always end with both parties finding common ground, but they highlighted one key principle of American society: the importance of freedom of speech. Such a right is rare and special; that the right to freedom of expression is listed first in the Bill of Rights is not a mere coincidence.
Acts of political violence, from the destruction of property to assassinations, are carried out for purposes of intimidation and to silence the voices of those with whom the perpetrator disagrees. When we fail to defend the right to free speech for those with whom we disagree, it diminishes that right; it endangers all of our civil liberties.
Americans must demand more from our leaders. Engaging in petty attacks from the safety of a cellphone or computer will not solve the pressing issues of our time. Debate will not always be civil; passion and politics are frequent bedfellows. There is certainly no guarantee that elected officials will come to a compromise if they engage in serious conversations about policy disagreements, but America’s leaders owe it to their constituents to discuss serious matters openly and rationally. Our own minds may also not be unpersuaded by friends, family, and neighbors of different political persuasions, but we could do better to understand each other.
American culture also suffers from a lack of intellectualism. Institutions of higher learning have poisoned the minds of some with the idea that words are a form of violence. The frightening reality is that when you teach impressionable minds that the spoken word is violent, they are bound to respond violently. This threat is magnified when college campuses become an echo chamber for one set of values. These echo chambers breed political extremism with no engagement in honest, intellectual debate. Intelligence may be a gift; intellectual integrity is a virtue. Learning is a lifelong skill that everyone must keep. The accumulation of knowledge is an essential component of an informed populace, the ability to engage in substantive dialogue, and human flourishing.
We must also remember the fundamental principles that guide us. They are principles that can still unite us. Our nation was born out of a fight for independence, freedom from a distant crown, and the freedom to live our lives as we see fit in accordance with ordered liberty. Our nation was made more perfect – and reunited – after a fight for a “new birth of freedom,” as President Lincoln described the Civil War in his address at Gettysburg. America has taken the fight for freedom to the shores of foreign nations, to liberate the continent of Europe from Nazism and fascism and to islands in the Pacific against Imperial Japan. It is our commitment to liberty that can unite Americans and those whom we entrust with power. Our founding documents–the Charters of Freedom–are testimonials to the high price we have placed on freedom.
As for myself, I identify as a conservative. I am someone who is guided by classical liberal principles and my faith. I do not always fit neatly into the conservative label; I hold opinions that some right of the political center would consider anathema to conservatism. While great progress has been made, being an openly gay man who holds conservative views can still feel isolating. I certainly find myself in disagreement with fellow conservatives because ideological divides do not merely exist in a strict left-right paradigm. I also have friends who are left of the political center, and I cherish those friendships. Similar principles–timeless principles that transcend partisan or ideological boundaries– are important in building any relationship with someone, but we can disagree on so much without being disagreeable.
If we are to believe that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happines,” then we must look at each other as equally American. Our differences are best reconciled around the dinner table, at a coffee shop, in our parks, etc., and by engaging in conversations that are honest to ourselves and our fellow countrymen. A civil society cannot survive if our disputes are settled with cowardly acts of political violence; the politics of retribution threatens to unravel civilized society. Our better angels can prevail, if we let them.
 | A guest post by
|