Charlie Kerk and the danger of selective sympathy Opinions

Conservative political activist Charlie Kirk was shot on Wednesday. The suspect’s suspect, which was defined by the law app, was held in the name of 22 -year -old Tyler Robinson, after a large hunt, based on information from people close to the Robinson family. Utah Spencer Cox’s governor said that a member of the Robinson family had communicated with a friend, then contacted the authorities, and that the friends and relatives that the investigators met described Robinson as “full of hatred” when talking about Kirk in a modern gathering. Robinson’s accurate motives are still explored for the shooting.

If the previous cases of political attacks are any evidence, more detailed information may be revealed about the potential motives of Robinson over time. But we do not need to read a statement or pass through social media publications to know that any attempt to justify Kirk’s killing on his words or opinions is something that cannot be defended.

I have mostly avoided Kirk’s speech over the years. I found most of the content that I heard from it is thorny, both for me or for many other Americans, and is degrading the objectives and objective discourse. Kirk often chose a deformed history of cherry to push the business schedules that many of us believe are not only hateful, but also to ethnic and ethnic minorities, migrants and other marginalized people.

But I didn’t want Kirk to be damaged. When I learned that he was shot, I didn’t want him to die. On the contrary, I prayed that God will be in the situation – the soul of God that Kerk claimed and I alike, whatever our political differences. I was hoping to recover, and that his brushes with death may help him get a more constructive perspective about politics and life.

Last summer, I had similar hopes (although expectations) that Donald Trump would be changed for the better after they survived an assassination attempt while speaking at the campaign event. “Trump has the opportunity to put peace and security of the country before his personal ambition,” she wrote at that time. “Perhaps he is close to death, he will change his point of view to arouse his supporters.”

This did not happen. Instead, Trump has quickly returned to the same type of demonization from the anger and selectivity that increased the polarized and polarized American policy. They have forgiven the rioters on January 6 who attacked the Capitol police officers, as well as the members of the proud children who were convicted against the United States government. Even with the death of Kirk from a life -like gunfire that almost had the life of Trump last year, the president and many of his supporters have mainly doubled the type of marriage that has become very common in American policy.

This does not mean that the Maga movement or the truth was alone in overcoming political violence or stripping others of humanity. When the CEO of UNITEDHEALTHARCACE Brian Thompson was shot and was killed late last year, his alleged killer, Luigi Mangion, became a somewhat popular champion. Although this murder does not seem to be an explicit party, many comments that mocked Thompson or Manjion celebrated the tone of war. And when the unfounded rumors began to be healthy about Trump’s health recently, many of his critics seemed to celebrate that Trump could be unable or worse, and he expressed his disappointment when he appeared in the eyes of the audience.

But toxic discourse online is one thing, and almost any popular theme will raise an offensive or hateful comment on social media. With the Maga movement led by Trump, the hateful language cannot be distinguished to its highest followers from the rhetoric coming from the movement’s voices and the most prominent of which is the movement. After breaking the news of Kirk’s death on social media, President Trump released a four -minute video that honors Kerk and abandons the political left.

“For years, those who are on the wonderful American radical lefts like Charlie with the Nazis and the worst killers and criminals in the world have compared. This type of speech is directly responsible for the terrorism that we see in our country today, and they must stop now. A pure and realistic way is possible.”

It now seems to be an appropriate time to remind you that, less than a year ago, Trump appeared on Fox News and pointed to the leftists as “the enemy from the inside” and “Marxists, the Communists and the fascists”, specifically the name of Adam Chef and “Bellum” and they are called “very sick and bad”.

“From the attack on my life in Bater, Pennsylvania, last year, who killed a husband and father, to the attacks on ice agents, to the villain murder of an executive official in the streets of New York, to a large number of importance, the majority leader at home Steve Skaliz and three others have harmed extremist left political violence, and have harmful to rich people more than necessary.”

Noticeably absent from the president’s list, many violent attacks were, sometimes fatal, against Democrats or carried out by Maga Teachers’ followers. It is an calculated option to condemn the prominent Republican shooting in 2017, but not Democratic murders and shooting two others in Minnesota three months ago, or the bright Palace of the Governor of Pennsylvania, while Democrats Josh Shapiro and his family sleep at home. The condemnation of “attacks on ice agents” after the afternoon is dozens of people who attacked the Capitol police officers is a satirical dual standard.

Through the discourse surrounding Kirk’s death, she became aware of the term “selective sympathy”, a brief phrase covering a concept that knows many of us. In its worst cases, President Trump and even Kirk participated in this type of moral relativity, and condoned the actions against their opponents that they will owe it if they were done to their allies. And those of us who reject the Maga ideology are in our worst cases when we tolerate, excuse, or even celebrate, violence against those who oppose us or who keep us in contempt.

At its best, Charlie Kerk has evacuated its fundamental religious and political beliefs by attracting global values ​​of love and human dignity rooted in Christianity and the principle of equality on the United States. While he often failed to match his speech with these greatest principles, Kirk and others in his ideological camp are still worthy of sympathy guaranteed in these principles. Denying them from this consideration based on their views is to undermine our opposition to their discord and even dangerous speech. Despite all of us, we can and should do what is better.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the editorial island.