Promoting conversations during a severe epidemic of political polarization
"Our View" is prepared by the Editorial Board and should be considered the institutional voice of The Record.
On Saturday, April 25, a shooting occurred at the annual White House Correspondents Dinner which had President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance in attendance. This is the third such assassination attempt targeting Trump: on July 14, 2024, he was struck in the right ear with a bullet while speaking at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania and on Sept. 15 of the same year he was shot at while playing golf at his resort in West Palm Springs, Florida.
The alleged shooter’s manifesto, published by the New York Post, specifies that his intended targets were “Administration officials (not including Mr. Patel) … prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest.” He went on to say that Secret Service agents were only targeted if necessary, and that attempts to incapacitate them aimed to be non-lethal. Hotel security, Capitol police and the National Guard were not going to be targeted unless they were to engage the shooter, and hotel employees and other guests were not targeted at all.
Acts of political violence have long been employed by extremists who disagree with specific policies or politicians, but in the last few years, the number of politically motivated attacks carried out has increased in a drastic and terrifying way. The Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C., started a domino effect that includes the home invasion and beating of Nancy Pelosi’s husband, the attempted assassination of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, the shootings of two Minnesota legislators, killing representative Melissa Hortman and her husband and critically injuring senator John Hoffman and his wife, the murder of political activist Charlie Kirk and the repeated attempts on Trump’s life.
This concerning escalation of political disagreements stems from the inability of the American public to sit down and engage in meaningful, productive conversations with one another about topics on which there is not perfect agreement. The drastic polarization of the United States political climate seemingly started during the 2016 presidential election has gotten exponentially worse over the last decade, with the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbating the contention. The worst of this is on social media, where any mention of politics, political figures or policies devolves almost instantly into dehumanizing insults towards anyone that has a differing opinion.
A miniscule version of this exists on our own campus is the platform of YikYak. The ability to post controversial political opinions under the security of anonymity and subsequently say whatever you so desire to other members of our community harms our collective identity as joint Catholic institutions.
Instead of shamelessly maligning your peers on the internet when topics surrounding politics arise, choose to sit down with someone who expresses an opinion that is different than your own and have a meaningful, productive conversation about how you disagree. When the members of our community make the conscious effort to understand each other and their unique perspectives it improves the quality of all our interactions, and it empowers everyone to be the truest version of themselves they can be. If you find yourself in a conversation where you disagree, recognize the situation and allow yourself to be controlled by your brain and maintain a respectful tone, rather than letting your emotions dictate the flow of conversation and seeing it decay personal attacks and vitriol.