This past Saturday (07/13/25) , a highly controversial political figure in the US narrowly escaped an assassination attempt when a bullet grazed his ear. Although the candidate was fortunate to survive, one person in the crowd was killed, and two others were severely injured by the shooter.
Since the tragic assassinations of the 1960s, including JFK, Malcolm X, MLK, and Bobby Kennedy, there have been numerous attempts on the lives of US politicians, such as the shooting of President Reagan in 1981. Compared to many other countries where political leaders are frequently assassinated, the US has been relatively safe for those running for office.
I do not share the views or values of the candidate injured on Saturday. I think that his often violent rhetoric has contributed significantly to the toxic political climate. He has subtly encouraged his followers to interpret his messages as calls to action without explicitly advocating violence. His support for fringe groups with violent agendas and his role in inciting the January 6th Capitol riot, where he did little to stop the violence, are deeply concerning to say the least.
Despite my strong opposition to his agenda and policies, particularly Agenda 2025, and his efforts to evade justice for numerous legal issues, it is crucial to confront his ideas democratically. He is a presidential candidate chosen by his followers and has effectively eliminated any significant opposition within his party. Although he has lost several trials and is a convicted felon, he remains a free man and must be debated on the merits of his policy proposals or their lack thereof.
Wishing for the candidate’s death or feeling disappointed that he survived is an admission that we doubt our ability to defeat him democratically. It also makes us no better than those we accuse of violence. We need to reflect on these feelings and recognize that resorting to violence is never the solution.
This event should be seen as a call to find common ground.
Can we agree that violence is not the answer to our differences?
Can we agree that spreading unfounded rumors about shooting events is harmful?
Can we agree that too many young males fantasize about committing acts of violence?
Can we agree that we want to live in a free society, which is worth defending together?
Can we agree that our focus should be on political issues rather than personal attacks?
Can we agree that we should be able to hold fair elections where the winner will be recognized by all of society, not just their supporters?
Feel free to add to this list. It is by no means complete.
We must of course look into our deep identity crisis. We live in two separate worlds with two different visions for America’s future. To move forward, these visions need to converge more again. Despite our differences, we can still agree on the vast majority of daily life issues when we communicate with each other. The remaining contentious issues are often exaggerated, making us believe we cannot have meaningful conversations.
Finding common ground may be less sensational and less appealing for news ratings, but it is essential for our democracy. If we allow our democratic principles to erode further, we risk transitioning to a more authoritarian system with fewer individual freedoms and less overall wealth, based on historical trends of less free societies.
We need to engage in constructive, albeit sometimes dull, discussions to strengthen our shared values:
- How much gun control do we need and want?
- What should our role in the world be?
- How much free trade should we have, and what are the pros and cons?
- What level of border security is necessary, and how can we achieve it?
- How should our children be educated, and how can we avoid ideological battles over school boards?
- How should we address wealth inequality and shifting demographics?
- How are we handling the impacts of climate change?
- Should we have more grassroots input on these significant issues?
These are the conversations we need to have, rather than focusing on partisan divides. We need this substance in our debate and create a culture that leaves little room for shooters trying to create chaos. How to eliminate them should be added to our list of discussion topics, not how enable them and create more of this toxic horror.
This will require us to be open minded, stay curious and stay engaged in forming a better future for all of us.
Simple? No.
Worthwhile – especially given the alternatives? Absolutely yes.