Abstract
This essay argues that much of what Americans label “political violence” in lone-actor attacks is misread. Media and elites rapidly frame incidents as partisan escalation, but closer inspection shows ideology often functioning as a costume that dignifies personal collapse—loneliness, status loss, untreated mental-health decline—while martyrdom supplies the stage.
The “simplification machine” of digital media rewards speed, spectacle, and binary labels; the political class then exploits those labels to mobilize fear. Examining recent cases alongside expert commentary, the essay proposes a sharper typology (ideological, grievance, performative, and collapse violence) and a higher bar for the term “political violence” (organized, collective, strategic). Reframing lone-actor attacks as individualized calamities shifts remedies toward public-health approaches, improved social guardrails, careful rhetoric, and targeted gun-access interventions—lowering civic temperature and improving prevention.
Introduction: The Charlie Kirk Moment
On September 10, 2025, a single gunshot at Utah Valley University instantly reshaped America’s political conversation. Charlie Kirk—a national conservative leader and co-founder of Turning Point USA—was assassinated while speaking before a campus audience. Within two days, major outlets like Politico ran sweeping analyses on the dangers of political violence, 10 Political Violence Experts on What Comes Next for America. Commentators framed the murder as proof that America’s partisan divide had reached a deadly peak, branding it both an “assault on conservatism” and a forewarning of worse to come.
We have seen this cycle before: shock, instant labeling, and leaders rallying their bases. In the first hours after such events, the attacker’s identity, motives, or state of mind often fade behind what the act seems to symbolize. The story becomes less about the crime itself and more about the meaning assigned to it—a process that shapes both policy and public imagination.
Not everyone rushed to interpret. In a rare display of restraint, Utah’s governor urged patience, reminding citizens that their first responsibility was “to the victims, their families, and to the truth—not to scoring points.” His words stood out less for eloquence than for rarity. In today’s climate, where tragedy is routinely weaponized for partisan gain, calls for calm have become the exception.
That contrast—the reflex to frame versus the appeal for restraint—sets the stage for this essay’s central questions: What makes an act of violence political? Is it the attacker’s intent, a manifesto, or the partisan utility others find in the event? Are we witnessing a genuine rise in political violence, or simply a faster impulse to label violence as political in an age of instant outrage and media churn?
This essay seeks to open the debate on political violence wider. By examining the Kirk assassination alongside other incidents and engaging seriously with arguments that America is sliding into organized political violence, I suggest that our prevailing framework may miss the deeper reality. Too often, ideology functions more as costume than cause. Martyrdom fantasies outpace genuine political intent. Media and political exploitation create a mirage of clarity—when in truth, the roots of violence remain layered, unstable, and deeply personal.
This is the starting point for a fact-based search and honest conversation about violence, politics, and meaning in today’s America.
NEXT POST:
Part I: How We Frame Violence
In reality, much of today’s violence can be better understood as symptomatic of broader societal breakdown, manifesting politically because individuals anchor their personal crises in political rhetoric.