How America Confronts a Dangerous Crossroads Following the Conservative Activist Shooting

It has been a brutal week in America, and many are questioning if the nation can escape this cycle of animosity and violence.

After one of the most searing assassinations in American history, the governor of Utah pleaded for Americans to turn down the political temperature.

However, hardly anyone thinks that is the route the nation will take—at least not in the near future.

The past few decades are filled with instances where America opted not to unite after a tragedy. It didn't happen over a decade past when a left-leaning congresswoman was shot in the head, and also several years back when a Republican lawmaker was attacked during a team rehearsal.

The public failed to come together during a global pandemic. Actually, the pandemic made divisions worse.

The reason is simple, but difficult to alter. The incentives that drive American political life benefit people and platforms that turn up the heat, rather than those who dial tensions down.

Nationwide, one is in a better position to get elected if you run on policies and rhetoric that resonate with your political base, rather than the centrist voters.

Similarly, across news outlets, commentators who discuss government are rewarded for being more extreme and stoking outrage—this is the way to get more eyeballs and, in the end, more advertising dollars.

These systemic rewards is what makes Utah Governor Spencer Cox something of an American exception.

His message seemed remarkably reasonable, so wholesome—an effort, in a sea of conflict, at reconciliation.

Past Decades versus Today

Division and political violence have long existed in America. Approximately in the 1860s, the country engaged in civil conflict and has continued intermittently.

Over a period of a short span during that era, a national leader was assassinated and then his sibling met the same fate while campaigning to become president. Around that time, two of the nation's most influential civil rights leaders were murdered as well.

During the next decade, President Gerald Ford was targeted on multiple instances. Later on, another president was shot while walking to his limousine.

And of course, just last year a former president was the target of a failed attempt on his life from an assailant at a rally—and a second alleged attempt by a gunman in Florida, with legal proceedings commenced the same period Kirk was killed.

What makes this era so different from the past decades, however, is precisely Governor Cox is concerned with.

While he has carefully steered away from stating things that would deepen splits among the public, he has not been so gentle toward the tech platforms that he clearly blames for this tragedy.

"In my view that social media has played a direct role in every single assassination and effort that we have seen during the past several years," Cox said publicly.

He added that "cancer" was probably an insufficient term for the impact on American society.

Additionally, he argued regarding the effect of social media, arguing: "Although occasionally the discussion on platforms can become negative, it's still good that there is a dialogue happening."

'This is like a Bad Marriage'

The dangers of this environment that combines social media with governance concerns even those who care deeply about politics, irrespective of their affiliations.

Recently, a young organizer, a 19-year-old serving as the head of a local branch of a political group, a conservative network, put it plainly: "Social media are certainly a challenging thing for our society.

"It is nearly impossible to engage in dialogue with anyone who doesn't agree to your ideology—which is deeply unfortunate."

Tragic and ironic, since the activist viewed himself as a advocate of free speech, while his detractors frequently contested with that framing. His death, though, may push the nation away from civil discourse.

Many on the left are eager to investigate the ways that the perpetrator was potentially radicalised by online groups and group chats. Many on the right tend to unpack if the individual was involved in a left-wing conspiracy.

No side seems especially willing to focus on healing or unity.

In truth, those who study radicalization believe that left-right is not the most helpful way to analyze the split of the present.

"It does take a desire to turn down the hostility… and demands people to have a little more bravery than they're showing.

"I think it is more useful to emphasize how we as a society move forward and open a new chapter, because this is like a dysfunctional relationship. Similar to a bad marriage, there are no winners by assigning blame."

What Healing Would Take

Regarding the issue of if America can overcome the grip of the algorithms that fuel the rifts, that would take a leader of enormous strength with an similarly deep commitment to reconciliation.

"I'm not sure how to exit this," a politics writer commented. "It would help if both parties—referring to 'parties' not just elected officials—commit to stop the recriminations and just say 'stop'."

"Usually only a president can facilitate that. Without both sides agreeing there are boundaries that shouldn't be crossed, or lacking the next president doing so, it is doubtful reconciliation can occur."

Based on observation is that Trump does believe that people on the left want to eliminate his political base. Following Kirk's death, his tone has been a very different tone compared to the governor of Utah.

"I'll tell you {something|a