Despite the Constitution’s call for unity and freedom of thought, the United States is growing increasingly divided along ideological lines.
Since 2015, we have witnessed a decline in respect behavior between political parties and the people affiliated with or aligned with them.
We have noticed politicians normalizing the use of unprofessional and disrespectful language towards one another, as well as unethical campaign tactics to belittle their opponents.
According to the Onero Institute, during the June 27, 2024 presidential debate between President Donald Trump and then Democratic candidate President Joe Biden, Trump finished a rebuttal with an insult and a confusing statement about Biden being akin to a Palestinian, despite the topic being about Ukraine and Trump’s concerns about government money being funneled in support of Ukraine’s conflict with Russia.
“[Biden’s] become like a Palestinian, but they don’t like him because he’s a very bad Palestinian: he’s a weak one,” Trump said.
Later in the debate, Biden threw a personal attack at Trump, making an ad hominem, as he attempted to diminish Trump’s leadership as a former president, calling it “malarkey.”
“He should be in jail […] It’s been a terrible thing, what you’ve done […] I’ve never heard so much malarkey in my entire life,” Biden said.
Political debates did not always lack civility.
According to The Michigan Daily, during the lead-up to the 2008 Presidential Election, “Republican Presidential nominee John McCain came to Democratic nominee Barack Obama’s defense after one of McCain’s supporters made disparaging, racist claims about the Democratic nominee. Before she could finish, McCain grabbed the mic and interrupted, stating that Obama was a “family man, a citizen that (he) just happen(s) to have disagreements with.”
Not only have we seen a decline in political respect during debates, but we have also seen politicians admit to disliking the opposition to a degree that we find to be hateful and despicable.
Turning Point USA founder and popular, but controversial, Republican speaker Charlie Kirk, was assassinated on September 10.
During Kirk’s memorial service on September 21, Trump disagreed with what he believed Kirk stood for, with respect to wanting the best for his opponent.
“That’s where I disagree with Charlie,” Trump said. “I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them.”
In addition to the decline of respect and civility in politics, this country’s extreme ideologies have birthed politically motivated violence, with both sides experiencing targeted assassinations.
On June 14, Minnesota House of Representatives Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman, her husband Mark Hortman, and Minnesota State Senator John Hoffman and his wife Yvette Hoffman were assassinated due to what Minnesota Governor Tim Walz attributes to a politically motivated assassination.
According to Acting U.S. Attorney Joseph H. Thompson, Vance Boelter, the assassin, was motivated by a difference of ideology and political belief.
“He carried out targeted political assassinations the likes of which have never been seen in Minnesota,” Thompson said.
The left is not the only recipient of politically motivated violence.
According to PBS.org, Kirk’s alleged shooter, Tyler Robinson, had left incriminating information that pointed to a motivation derived from political differences.
“A note that Robinson had left for his romantic partner before the shooting said he had the opportunity to kill one of the nation’s leading conservative voices, ‘and I’m going to take it,’ Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray told reporters before the first hearing.
Gray also said that Robinson wrote in a text about Kirk to his partner, “I had enough of his hatred,” according to PBS.
In addition to the assassination of Kirk, President Trump has had two attempted assassinations during the course of his 2024 presidential election campaign. Both shooters were said to be motivated by political beliefs.
The significance of these attacks points to a split among two groups.
The first group consists of those who may disagree with a politician, but would never consider murder the answer versus a second group radicalized enough to believe that politicians with ideologies opposite to them deserve to die.
This can be attributed to the rise of polarization and a muddying of the political waters, where speakers are misrepresented and causes are increasingly radicalizing.
“Although the vast majority of Americans would never commit partisan violence and oppose it, widespread polarization and misperceptions that the other side is far more violent than it actually is create a dangerous environment where extremists can more easily rationalize using violence,” PBS said.
With the decline of politeness in politics and open forums, and the rise of radicalism, extremism and partisan violence, we are left to assume a correlation between the two.