It has been a harsh week across the nation, and many are questioning whether the nation can escape this cycle of animosity and aggression.
After a deeply shocking assassinations in American history, the state leader of Utah pleaded for citizens to lower the rhetorical heat.
But, hardly anyone thinks that will be the route the nation will choose—at least not anytime soon.
Recent history is filled with instances where the US opted not to come together in the aftermath of a tragedy. This was the case over a decade past after a Democratic congresswoman was targeted in the head, nor eight years ago when a Republican lawmaker was attacked while at a team rehearsal.
Americans didn't even unify in the face of a worldwide health crisis. Actually, the pandemic exacerbated polarization more severe.
Shortly after the activist’s passing, the country's ideological factions returned to conflicting viewpoints.
This dynamic is simple, yet difficult to alter. Motivations that fuel the US political system benefit people and platforms that turn up the heat, not those who dial tensions down.
Around the country, you're in a better position to get elected if you run on policies and rhetoric that resonate with your political base, instead of the political middle.
Equally, across news outlets, commentators who opine about government are compensated for being more extreme and stoking outrage—this is the method to get more eyeballs and, in the end, more advertising dollars.
This incentive structure is what makes Utah Governor Spencer Cox something of an American exception.
After Charlie Kirk was killed, he urged Americans to "log off, turn off, get outside, embrace loved ones, volunteer and perform acts locally."
He sounded remarkably reasonable, so wholesome—an effort, amid division, at reconciliation.
The 1960s and 70s versus the Present
Political strife and ideologically motivated attacks have long existed across the US. Some 160 years ago, the nation went to war with itself and it has continued intermittently.
During a short span in the 1960s, a US president was assassinated and then his brother was killed as he ran for high office. In that same period, two of the nation's most influential activists were assassinated as well.
During the next decade, President a sitting leader was shot at on multiple instances. Later on, Ronald Reagan was shot on his way to his vehicle.
And of course, just last year a former president was the victim of a failed attempt on his life from an assailant in Pennsylvania—plus another reported incident involving a shooter in Florida, whose trial commenced the week Kirk was killed.
However, what distinguishes the current climate so different from the 1960s and 70s, however, is precisely Governor Cox is concerned with.
While he has carefully steered away from saying things that would deepen splits among Americans, he has not been as measured toward the social media companies that he attributes responsibility to for the incident.
"I believe that social media has played a direct role in every single assassination and effort that we have seen over the last five, six years," the governor stated in an interview.
He went on to say that "cancer" was probably too weak term for what it has done on the nation’s fabric.
Large platforms have stayed quiet publicly. However, Elon Musk, owner of a social network, has weighed in, claiming that the "radical left celebrated the cold-blooded murder of the activist," further noting, "coming together is unattainable with extremists who condone violence."
He has also posted regarding the impact of online discourse, saying: "Although occasionally the discussion on platforms can become hostile, it's still good that there is a dialogue taking place."
'Comparing It to a Bad Marriage'
The pitfalls of this environment that blends digital communication with governance worries including those who care deeply about politics, irrespective of their affiliations.
Earlier this week, Kaitlin Griffiths, a teenage serving as the president of a local chapter of a political group, a conservative network, stated clearly: "Social media is certainly a challenging thing for our society.
"It is nearly impossible to hold a conversation with anyone holding opposing views with your political beliefs—which is that's honestly tragic."
Tragic and paradoxical, since the activist viewed himself as a champion of open discourse, even as his detractors often disagreed that characterization. The loss, though, may push the country further from respectful debate.
Soon after Kirk's death, the country's factions had already retreated to divergent narratives.
Progressives want to explore the means that the perpetrator might have been influenced by internet subcultures and digital forums. Many on the right prefer to unpack if the suspect was involved in a progressive conspiracy.
No side seems particularly keen to focus on reconciliation or unity.
The reality, experts in radicalization contend that partisan is not the most useful framework to analyze the split of this current moment.
"More productive to look at what's causing individuals to be ungovernable," notes Rachel Kleinfeld, a researcher with the a think tank focusing on global stability who specialises in divided nations.
"It does take a willingness to turn down the temperature… which demands leaders to have a bit more bravery than currently exhibited.
"I think it is better to emphasize ways for the public turn a page and start anew, since the situation resembles a bad marriage. And like a bad marriage, there are no winners by pointing fingers."
What Reconciliation Demand
Regarding the question of whether America can break the grip of the digital systems that stoke the divisions, that would take a leader of great resolve and an similarly deep commitment to unity.
"It is unclear how we pull out of this situation," an analyst told me. "Progress would require if both parties—referring to 'parties' beyond political figures—commit to stop the recriminations and just say 'enough'."
"Usually only a president can enable that. Without both sides consenting there are boundaries that shouldn't be crossed, or lacking the incoming administration doing so, I'm not sure reconciliation can occur."
The former president is not such a style of leader. He often seems at his strongest, politically, while having an opponent to fight against.
My understanding is that he maintains that people on the left seek to eliminate his Maga movement. Following Kirk's death, he has taken a sharply contrasting approach from the governor of Utah.
"Let me state {something|a
