The murders of Kirk and other victims of political violence are never acceptable. Our responses shouldn’t be party-driven
It is right and proper that the nation has recoiled in shock at the recent assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Public mourning, impassioned condemnations from both sides of the aisle, and renewed calls to reject political violence — all of this is necessary in a democracy.
But grief demands consistency. Justice demands honesty. And outrage, if selective, does more harm than good.
On June 14, Minnesota lost one of its most distinguished public servants. Melissa Hortman, former speaker of the state House, and her husband, Mark, were murdered in their Brooklyn Park home. State Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, were also shot and gravely wounded. Authorities say the perpetrator posed as law enforcement to gain access before being apprehended.
The design, the intent, the terror-this was an act clearly meant to silence and to intimidate. It was a stark violation of the democratic fabric. Yet its memory is fading in the wider national conversation; its lessons under-emphasized. Why?
Selective outrage erodes trust
What troubles me is less the existence of outrage now than its uneven mapping onto political violence. When violence befalls someone who aligns with your beliefs, it is front-and-center: “This must never happen again.”
When it strikes someone across the aisle, too often there is muted response, slower acknowledgment, fewer headlines, and less visible grief.
Such selectivity undermines the premise that violence against public servants or activists is always wrong, regardless of their ideology. It gives license to a dangerous double standard: violence is abhorrent, unless the victim is someone “we disagree with.” That corrodes our moral authority to call out threats to democracy, gun violence, or extremist ideology when they happen elsewhere.
The case of Melissa Hortman
Hortman spent two decades in public service. She legislated on environmental policy, transportation, women’s rights, and gun reform. She was well known and well respected. Her death, alongside the murder of her husband and the attempted murder of other lawmakers, was widely covered in Minnesota. State leaders condemned the act across party lines.
But in the national discourse, after that tragedy, the call to broader awareness and enduring change was softer. There were no weeks of rolling coverage. No tidal wave of political speech demanding reform. And certainly not the kind of resounding “moment of silence” that we now see for Charlie Kirk.
Why this matters
Political violence is not an abstract threat. It erodes safety in public discourse, weaponizes fear, and chills dissent. When public servants can be murdered simply for being public servants — or based on their identity or party — no one is secure.
Consistency in condemning violence is also a prerequisite for real policy response. Security for public officials, gun laws, and protections for civic participation all require public consensus. That consensus is undermined when moral clarity is perceived as partisan.
What we should demand
Acknowledgment: Unvarnished statements from all leaders that political violence in any form, against anyone, erodes democracy.
Equal commemoration: Not a competition over victimhood, but remembering the dead and injured regardless of party.
Media responsibility: Comparable coverage and context for all acts of political violence so citizens see the broader pattern.
Policy follow-through: On prevention, protection, and on ensuring that law enforcement and justice systems treat all victims equally.
We cannot reserve our empathy or outrage for moments when the victim reflects our own beliefs. The sanctity of life, and the health of our democracy, demand more. If we truly believe that political violence is incompatible with American values, we must be willing to denounce it consistently — no matter who the target is or what cause they represent.
Only through that consistency can we begin to heal civic trust and rebuild a shared sense of safety. When leaders and citizens alike stand together against all acts of political violence, we send a powerful message: in the United States, debate is settled with ideas and votes, not intimidation or bloodshed.
That is how we protect every public servant, every activist, and every citizen from fearing for their life because of what they believe, say, or do in service to their community.
Laura Armstrong of Rapid City, a speech language pathologist who owns a small private clinic, is a regular contributor to The South Dakota Standard. She served two consecutive terms on the Rapid City Common Council (2017-2023) twice as council president, and remains dedicated to the Rapid City community.
Photo: Melissa Hortman at a 2023 bill-signing ceremony in Minnesota, public domain, wikimedia commons
The South Dakota Standard is offered freely and is supported by our readers. We have no political or commercial sponsorship. If you'd like to help us continue our mission to advance independent political and social commentary, you can do so by clicking on the "Donate" button that's on the sidebar to your right.
