PoliticusUSA is independent news that puts people first. Please support our work by becoming a subscriber.
There has been a politicization of crime and violence over the last several months of the current administration. The president has falsely painted crime as a problem in Democratic majority cities. He even told reporters recently that he would not consider sending National Guard troops to Republican majority cities or Republican run states because he didn’t think that there was much crime there.
The reality is that crime doesn’t have a partisan affiliation or a geographic boundary. Conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed in one of the most conservative states in the country in act of political violence that should be universally condemned by all.
Democracies don’t settle their political differences with firearms, and the notion that a conservative like Charlie Kirk was safer because he was speaking in a state with more conservatives was tragically proven to be false.
One of the critical ways for this country to heal and move on from the idea that political violence is a reasonable response to disagreement is first to stop thinking about crime and violence in partisan terms.
The bullet that killed Charlie Kirk didn’t care that he was a conservative. Bullets don’t care who someone votes for or if they vote at all.
America has gone through periods of political violence in the past. One of the most well-known periods was the one from 1963 to 1968, which saw figures like President John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and Robert F. Kennedy assassinated.
It is no coincidence that America has turned more politically violent as Donald Trump has trafficked in partisan divide.
Violence is never a solution in politics, but as long as the nation allows itself to be divided to benefit a few, the violence is likely to continue.
What do you think? Does making crime a partisan issue contribute to political violence? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
