On Sept. 10, conservative commentator and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk was assassinated while hosting a campus debate event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. A video of his murder was posted online only minutes after it happened, before being widely shared across social media platforms in the following days. Many people on social media have now seen the video of him being killed.

According to Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute, Kirk’s death marks the 82nd politically-motivated killing in the United States since 2020. This year alone, nine people have been killed in politically motivated murders, 24 if you include the 15 people killed by an Islamic extremist at a New Year’s Day party on New Orleans’ Bourbon Street.

To put these numbers into context, according to the U.S. Political Violence database, the past five years have seen the highest rate of political assassinations in the United States outside of the Civil War era. 

Many may remember that earlier this summer, the speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives, Melissa Hortman, and her husband were assassinated. Only half a year before that, Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, one of America’s largest health insurers, was murdered in a politically motivated killing. When cases like these occur, even the most notable instances of political violence only remain news stories for a few weeks. 

This information apathy can be partially attributed to the fatigue induced by a 24-hour news cycle, which is exacerbated by social media. In recent years, however, there has been a quick withering of these stories in the news because incidents of political violence occur almost monthly now, providing new stories to push the old ones out. 

Every time there is an act of political violence, we all follow the same cycle. We, as a collective political class, are inundated with online posts and reporters calling for everyone to “lower the temperature.” This has been the case for years, and most of the time, the immediate period that follows an act of political violence is less emotionally charged.

However, this is not the case anymore. The cycle of neutralizing the political charge has changed since Brian Thompson’s murder last December. After his death, many people online, including some of our classmates, celebrated his murder. The reasoning given by these people was that, as the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, Thompson was directly responsible for the suffering of many Americans. 

UnitedHealthcare is notorious for denying claims made by patients and their doctors, according to CBS News. I don’t doubt that many people have experienced a decreased quality of life because of their actions. Still, in the aftermath of Thompson’s death, he and his company were accused of killing people because they denied insurance claims, and that Thompson’s death was revenge. Despite it being a common claim on social media at the time, there is no concrete evidence that UnitedHealthcare’s denial of any insurance claim has led to someone’s death. 

On a personal level, the killing of Brian Thompson and the subsequent reaction by much of the American public angered me. One of the things I’m most proud of is my leadership in an effort to pass a federal health care bill that would help expand coverage for people like me, who were born with various congenital anomalies and birth defects. For the past two years, I’ve been organizing advocates from around the country to meet with their representatives and share their story of their struggle to access the insurance coverage they already pay for.  

My family and I, along with many of my friends affected by birth deformities, have faced additional difficulties in our lives because of the stinginess and, at times, ignorance of health insurance companies. Some of them have even experienced medical complications as a result. But when Brian Thompson was murdered, none of my friends fighting for insurance coverage celebrated. 

Everyone involved in this effort understood immediately that Thompson’s death would not help our cause. Instead, it would only hurt all the work that has gone into trying to create change the right way. When Brian Thompson was murdered, we didn’t receive a letter from insurance companies saying that they now understood our struggle. News organizations didn’t call us to come share our stories on their networks. Nobody lacking health insurance coverage was suddenly granted it.

What did happen, though? The important conversations we had started online about our work to improve healthcare access in America became immediately overshadowed by hundreds of thousands of people celebrating the death of a man they saw as the figurehead of a broken system. 

If I, who has every reason in the world to be furious at the health insurance companies in our country, didn’t celebrate the death of Brian Thompson, what excuse does anybody else have? The people who celebrate the deaths of their political “opponents” are rarely the ones doing anything to help others. It is always the laziest citizens who applaud civic barbarism.

Unsurprisingly, the killing of Brian Thompson did not create any meaningful change. Nobody’s life has improved as a result. The killing of Melissa Hortman did not cause a significant change either. The same will soon be said for the killing of Charlie Kirk. For those who vehemently disagreed with his political beliefs and celebrated his death, the reality is that it will only inflame the fires of the divisive culture we see today. Kirk’s death will likely inspire more people to become violent and hurt others.

When political violence happens, the only message truly communicated is that we clearly care about each other a lot less than anyone could’ve previously surmised. 

People who continue to celebrate Kirk’s death point to his alleged transphobic, racist, homophobic and Zionist beliefs as the basis for their reaction. In my own research, I don’t believe him to be all of these things. Nevertheless, even if Kirk was all of these things and more, it should not be a reason to wish him dead. He welcomed political debate and consistently had people ideologically opposite him on his media platforms, something Americans have been doing since the beginning of our republic.

It is a fundamental feature of the U.S. political process that we do not respond to those we disagree with by means of violence. And no, the American Revolution is not morally comparable to killing a guy who owned a Young Republicans organization.

Even if we believe that some politicians and figureheads are destroying our country through their rhetoric, we do not respond with violence, and if someone does, they deserve our scorn. 

Over time, I’ve observed many of Charlie Kirk’s statements and actions. I admire his willingness to stand up for what he believed in. He never called for violence, and in many of the videos I’ve now watched, he showed respect for those who disagreed with him. 

People I know and am friends with have been reposting Instagram stories since Kirk’s death that compare him to being a Hitler Youth leader. Not only is this the choice historical comparison for those uneducated about history, but it’s completely nonsensical. It’s a perfect example of the emotionally charged political dialogue that inspires people to commit their own acts of violence.

Every victim of political violence has sacrificed their life on the altar of free speech for the rest of us to continue speaking our minds. If you find yourself celebrating the death of someone with political differences, you should seriously consider taking a step back from politics.

Some people I follow online have predicted that the United States may be entering into our own Years of Lead, a famous period in Italian history marked by huge waves of political terrorism. If we continue in this current socio-political direction, I share in making this grim prediction. 

There is still plenty of time for us to reverse course as we inch closer to Years of Lead and American Civil War-level political violence. I’m not asking anyone to keep vigil over the political figures who are killed, but at a minimum, we cannot celebrate their deaths. The acceleration of political violence, historically, never stops at just politicians. It can and will affect private citizens who are mere participants in the political system.

By all means, don’t stop believing what you believe in, but if your beliefs call for the celebration of a political figure’s murder, it is time to rethink your belief system.