By Matt Underwood Okay, so the central question here, the one Senator Schatz seems to be sidestepping, is: “What f—ing difference does it make?” when it comes to the political leanings of the suspect in the shooting of Charlie Kirk. And honestly, it makes a world of difference. It’s not about some abstract concept of political correctness; it’s about acknowledging a very real and present danger.
The issue isn’t just the act itself. It’s the *context*. It’s the environment, the echo chamber, the constant barrage of inflammatory rhetoric. We have a segment of the population – let’s be frank, a segment of the right-wing – that is being whipped into a frenzy. They’re primed for violence. They’re being told, explicitly and implicitly, that their enemies are on the other side, that liberals are out to destroy them. Then, when something like this happens, it’s *immediately* framed in a way that justifies or even encourages further aggression.
Think about the knee-jerk reaction. Before the facts were even known, the right-wing media and their online followers were already salivating. “Liberals did it!” The narrative was set, the call for revenge went out, and it was all based on assumptions and lies. This blatant disregard for the truth is the crux of the problem. It highlights that a particular brand of politics *matters* because it *breeds* this kind of behavior.
It’s not about the individual shooter, per se. It’s about the ideology they’ve embraced. It’s about the radicalization process, the recruitment tactics, and the normalization of violent language. What’s dangerous is the constant demonization of “the other.” This constant drumbeat, the incessant accusations, the dehumanization of their opponents – it creates a climate where violence becomes not only acceptable but almost inevitable.
When people on the right call for violence, it’s treated as a “political view.” When the left calls out dangerous rhetoric, it’s “divisive.” The double standard is outrageous. It’s like saying, “Hey, you’re getting punched in the face, but don’t focus on *who* is punching you – focus on peace.” You can’t have it both ways. You can’t preach unity while simultaneously excusing and minimizing the actions of those who are actively trying to cause harm.
The lack of bluntness from political leaders is often stunning. When it comes to racism, we hear softened language. Why? Because they are afraid of rocking the boat. Because they want to maintain a sense of civility and comity, even if it means turning a blind eye to the actions of the violent right. It makes a difference because the media will paint it as a lone wolf instead of a symptom of a bigger problem,
This isn’t just about the right-wing, though. It’s about the reaction to events. The focus on mental health is important, sure. But it’s not a substitute for accountability. It’s not a Get Out of Jail Free card. It’s not an excuse to avoid the hard conversations about where this violence comes from.
The fact is, the suspect’s political alignment matters because it tells us something about the source of the danger. It provides context, shows a pattern, a trend, and a danger that’s been growing for years. It allows people to see the forest for the trees. It allows us to understand the *why* behind the violence and not just the *what*.
It is important to identify the political undertones. The right wing is already ready to attack the left. But when someone that is of the right wing commits the act, it is brushed under the rug, and ignored. The double standard is clear and present. The right wing’s need to attack and make up stories is a problem.
So, while it’s tempting to take the high road, to preach unity and healing, it’s often a disingenuous move that is used to protect those in the right who have promoted violence. The truth is that the political context is vital, and it *does* make a difference, now more than ever. We need to be able to call it what it is. It is a political problem, fueled by a specific political ideology. And we ignore that fact at our own peril.