Elections
What do the Murders of Melissa Hortman and Charlie Kirk Say about American Politics
The last few months have been unusually violent in American politics. On June 14, 2025, Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband were murdered in their home. Less than three months later, on September 10, conservative commentator Charlie Kirk was murdered while speaking with students in Utah.
Two different figures, one an elected Democrat and one a Republican media personality, met violent ends within weeks of each other. These events aren’t just shocking — they’re destabilizing. They force us to ask: what is happening to America at this moment, and why is political violence escalating in such personal, targeted ways?
Political Violence in America: Not New, But Different
Political violence has never been absent from American history. The 1960s saw waves of assassinations — John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr., and Robert Kennedy — along with riots, bombings, and armed standoffs. In the 1970s, left-wing groups like the Weather Underground and right-wing extremists both used bombings as political statements.
Even further back, the late 1800s and early 1900s saw anarchists and radicals assassinate public officials, including President William McKinley in 1901. But after that period, direct political assassinations largely faded from American life. For decades, our political violence was more diffuse: riots, clashes with police, attacks on institutions like abortion clinics, or mass protests that sometimes turned chaotic.
That makes what we’re seeing now especially alarming. America has entered a moment when political anger is being channeled not only into protests or symbolic acts of destruction but into targeted attacks against specific individuals who represent a side, an ideology, or even just a political identity.
Why Target Individuals Instead of Institutions?
So why this shift? Why Hortman, why Kirk, why now?
There are a few possibilities:
- Polarization Makes Politics Personal
In today’s hyper-partisan media environment, politicians and commentators aren’t just public figures. They are avatars for “our side” or “their side.” If someone sees politics as a zero-sum war, then striking at an individual becomes a way of striking at the enemy camp itself. - Media Visibility Creates Symbols
Melissa Hortman wasn’t just a local leader — as Speaker of the Minnesota House, she symbolized Democratic governance. Charlie Kirk wasn’t just a conservative speaker — he was a well-known figure of Gen Z conservatism. The more recognizable the face, the more symbolic the attack. - Rage Seeks a Target
For people angry about the state of the world, abstract forces like “the government” or “the system” can feel too big to challenge. But individuals are tangible. They can be confronted, confronted violently, and in some twisted sense, made to pay.
The Dangerous Creation of Martyrs
The problem with political violence aimed at public figures is that it almost never silences ideas. Instead, it amplifies them. Assassinations and targeted killings often create martyrs.
We’ve seen this before. When Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, his death galvanized the civil rights movement. When George Tiller, an abortion provider, was murdered in 2009, he became a symbol of resistance for pro-choice advocates. Political killings rarely end the debates they spring from. More often, they harden divisions and fuel further violence.
So we have to ask: do attackers believe they are removing an obstacle, or do they hope to elevate their victim into a symbol? And do they even care about the consequences?
Violence as a Symptom of Democratic Erosion
The increase in targeted violence should worry all of us. Democracies depend on debate, persuasion, and peaceful transfer of power. When violence becomes a tool of politics, democracy itself is at risk.
It’s not just about the safety of politicians or media figures — it’s about what kind of country we want to live in. If disagreements are settled with bullets instead of ballots, the democratic project collapses. And once that collapse begins, history shows us it’s very hard to pull back.
The Role of Rhetoric
Words matter. Violent rhetoric, even if “just for clicks” or “just to fire up the base,” plants seeds. When pundits, politicians, or online influencers describe their opponents as evil, inhuman, or a threat to the nation’s survival, it makes violence seem not just possible but necessary to some listeners.
No, speech doesn’t pull the trigger — but speech can create the conditions where someone feels justified in doing so. We’ve seen this across the political spectrum, and it’s a reality no side can claim innocence from.
A Country Looking for Someone to Blame
At its heart, political violence is often about misplaced blame. Instead of confronting complex systemic issues — inequality, distrust in institutions, the decline of shared truth — it’s easier to point the finger at individuals. If we just get rid of this politician, or silence that commentator, the thinking goes, things will get better.
But it never works that way. Systems are larger than single people, and violence only deepens the very divisions it seeks to resolve.
Where Do We Go From Here?
The deaths of Melissa Hortman and Charlie Kirk should not be reduced to partisan talking points. They should be warnings. They tell us that America is reaching a boiling point, where political identity and human identity are merging in dangerous ways.
If we don’t want to see more violence, we have to lower the temperature:
- Hold leaders accountable for inflammatory rhetoric.
- Push back against the idea that opponents are enemies.
- Protect public figures, yes — but also rebuild public trust so fewer people feel desperate enough to lash out violently.
At the end of the day, democracy is fragile. It depends on a shared agreement that we fight with ideas, not weapons. Every act of political violence chips away at that agreement. And if we let too many chips fall, there may be nothing left to protect.
Final Thoughts
Political violence isn’t new, but the murder of elected officials and commentators in 2025 represents something darker and more targeted. It shows us a country where political disagreements are no longer just arguments but battles, where individuals become symbols, and where rage demands a body.
The real question is: do we want to continue down this path, where each assassination fuels the next, or can we step back and remember that politics, at its best, is about persuasion, compromise, and vision for the future — not about creating martyrs?
Because if we can’t, America risks trading democracy for vengeance.