September, June, May, April . . . Kirk, Boulder, Minnesota, DC, Pennsylvania . . . Killings and attempted killings — is this who we are?
When Westboro Baptist Church protested outside of Jewish organizations in Denver in 2010, including the IJN, not a single person went to the roof, rifle in hand, and shot any of the protesters dead, repugnant as their words and signs were. There was even a bit of jolly banter between onlookers and the Westboro folks as they let on how out-of-sync they realized their views were.
In its essence, free speech is offensive. It is subjective, therefore dependent on the person or society hearing the speech. Who would have an issue allowing any speech that one agreed with? There would be no need to enshrine free speech into law. By its nature, free speech means controversial speech.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk has shocked many Americans, ourselves included, to the core. Perhaps especially those of us in media, because a newspaper is the manifestation of the First Amendment. When a person is targeted and murdered for his political message, it is democracy that is in the crosshairs.
Charlie Kirk is not the first to be targeted. In fact, the attack on democracy has become altogether too common.
Consider the text of the First Amendment — “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” — when recalling the recent news items:
June: Run For Their Lives Boulder was firebombed; the attack left Jewish Boulderite Karen Diamond dead.
June: Melissa Hortman, speaker of Minnesota’s House of Representatives, and her colleague John Hoffman, were targeted. Hortman and her husband were killed. Hoffman was injured, but survived.
May: Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky were targeted and killed for their support of Israel.
April: Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and his family were targeted with arson on the first night of Passover at the Governor’s mansion.
Other recent violent attacks — not an exhaustive list:
• Two assassination attempts against then-candidate Donald Trump.
• Attempted kidnapping of Rep. Nancy Pelosi and the violent assault on her husband.
• Violent riots at the US Capitol, leaving four dead.
• Plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.
Despite what partisans may say, these attacks on democracy harm and are committed by both sides.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk should horrify anyone who still believes in the great American experiment.
In his press conference announcing the arrest of the suspect in Kirk’s killing, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox emerged as a statesman as he talked about choices. He pointed to Utahns reaction to last week’s violence — “vigils and prayers and people coming together to share [their] humanity.”
“We can return violence with fire and violence. We can return hate with hate. And that’s the problem with political violence as it metastasizes because we can always point the finger at the other side, and at some point, we have to find an off-ramp — or it’s going to get much, much worse.
“These are choices that we can make . . . every single one of us gets to choose right now . . . We get to make decisions. We have our agency.
“And I desperately call on every American, Republican, Democrat, liberal, progressive, conservative, MAGA, all of us, to please, please, please follow what Charlie taught me,” referencing a quotation of Kirk’s that Cox had cited earlier, “When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence.”
Will Americans follow Cox’s lead?
Will we start talking and stop treating human beings with whom we disagree as bad people?
Will we remember that as hateful we may find a person’s words to be, it does not mean that the person is no longer worthy of living?
Will we remember that people are sometimes far more than their political beliefs?
Will we acknowledge that people are complex and form their political views based on many factors in their life that we may know nothing about?
Will we stop refusing to listen — and instead talk, not yell?
As Cox said, it is up to us. It is our choice. We can choose to enrich democracy.
A good place to start? Talk to someone with whom you disagree. A recent exchange on the IJN’s letters page between those critical of Israel and others supportive of Israel afforded members of the community to speak openly and forthrightly about that which they are passionate.
Did those who signed the Israel-critical statement change their minds? Did those who rebutted it? Maybe, maybe not. But did it make the writers — and the readers — stop for a moment to consider a different view?
Another good place to start:
Stop assuming that soundbytes and pull quotes represent the breadth of what a person believes.
Charlie Kirk did not advocate stoning gays and Rep. Ilhan Omar did not laugh at Kirk’s death. Listen to the full exchanges — then decide what to think.
Making the choice to enrich democracy does not mean “putting politics aside”; it means talking and listening before drawing political conclusions.
It means that when you share a view with someone, or when you advocate for or against a position or public figure, you come from a place of information and consideration, not knee-jerk partisanship and shallow, social-media based parodies and worse.
The late Denver Holocaust survivor Fanny Starr said that our only true possession is our character.
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox has tasked us with what Fanny Starr learned by surviving the horrors of Bergen-Belsen, witnessing humanity at its lowest.
Who do we want to be — as individuals, as a nation?
Our character is our choice.
