Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

J.D. Tuccille

After Charlie Kirk’s Murder, Politicians Can Back Away From the Brink, or Make Matters Worse

Published

9 minute read

Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets

By J.D. Tuccille 

The political class has been pushing the country towards a conflict nobody should want.

The man shot during a Prove Me Wrong event held for the peaceful debate of policies and ideas was almost certainly the latest victim of America’s problem with political violence. And if it feels that this attack was worse in some ways than other high-profile incidents, that’s because it was.

With the assassination attempts on then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, the lethal attack on Minnesota lawmakers, the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, and other crimes, partisan observers could pretend the victims wielded power that made them legitimate targets. But Kirk was about discussion and persuasion. Agree with him or not, he didn’t do anything other than offend some sensibilities and, perhaps, change minds. Kirk was likely killed because of what he believed. And it’s not yet apparent that Americans will take this crime as a wake-up call rather than an excuse to rally the troops.

Spitting Partisan Venom

“We’ve seen other political violence occur in other states,” Democratic Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker said in response to news of Kirk’s assassination. “And I would just say it’s got to stop. And I think there are people who are fomenting it in this country. I think the president’s rhetoric often foments it.”

At MSNBC, political commentator Matthew Dowd went even further in blaming the murder of a conservative activist not just on the political right, but on the victim.

“He’s been one of the most divisive, especially divisive, younger figures in this who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech sort of aimed at certain groups,” commented Dowd, who was subsequently fired. “And I always go back to: Hateful thoughts lead to hateful words which then lead to hateful actions….You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have, and then saying these awful words, and then not expect awful actions to take place.”

At Fox News, Jesse Watters was up to the challenge of returning the sentiment.

“Trump gets hit in the ear. Charlie gets shot dead. They came after [Supreme Court Justice Brett] Kavanaugh with a rifle to his neighborhood….They are at war with us,” he charged the political left. “How much political violence are we going to tolerate?”

Then again, just the day before Kirk’s murder at Utah Valley University, Sen. Chris Murphy (D–Ct.) shared a video of himself insisting, “We’re in a war right now to save this country. And so you have to be willing to do whatever is necessary in order to save the country.”

If Donald Trump’s often rough rhetoric and loose way with insults foments violence, as Pritzker has it, then what in hell is Murphy doing? There’s plenty of venom to go around.

And the public hears these clowns. Several of my old college classmates were among those chortling over a meme making the rounds gloating that Charlie Kirk was shot, since that he was a defender of self-defense rights and the Second Amendment. And never mind that Kirk was reportedly killed with a bolt-action rifle, one of the few weapons that gun control advocates say they don’t want to ban.

Fortunately, not everybody sees this assassination as an opportunity to stir the pot. The Young Democrats and Young Republicans of Connecticut issued a joint statement denouncing the murder.

“What happened at Utah Valley University this afternoon is unacceptable,” it reads. “We reject all forms of political violence. There is no place in our country for such acts, regardless of political disagreements.”

That’s a nobler sentiment than any number of declarations of domestic war or accusations about who threw the first heated insult. It shows a path forward for peaceful disagreement, which is how healthy political systems are supposed to work and was the basis for Kirk’s Prove Me Wrong tour.

Escalating Political Tensions

But that’s not where we’ve been in recent years, and it’s too early to know which path Americans will choose going forward. In a country of widely disparate values, divergent ways of life, and policy preferences to match, people are moving to live with their political tribes and apart from their opponents even as the political class increasingly centralizes power and rules from the top down.

“Our analysis suggests partisanship itself, intentional or not, plays a powerful role when Americans uproot and find a new home,” Ronda Kaysen and Ethan Singer of The New York Times wrote last year in an examination of 3.5 million Americans who moved their residences. “Across the country, the result is a widening gap between blue neighborhoods and red ones.”

That could be an expanded opportunity to govern people differently according to their preferences. But Republicans and Democrats alike treat winning political office as winner-take-all opportunities to transform the country and jam their agendas down the throats of the losers. The result has been escalating frustration and a willingness to look to extreme tactics against political enemies.

A Growing Taste for Violence

In April 2024, a PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll found that “one in 5 U.S. adults believe Americans may have to resort to violence to get their own country back on track.” In that poll Republicans, at 28 percent, were more prone to violence than Democrats at 12 percent or independents at 18 percent. Researchers have long assumed that the right is inherently more prone to use force to get its way. A year and a half and lots of violent incidents later, that’s no longer the case.

In March of this year—after the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson and the beginning of a wave of attacks on Tesla dealerships and owners—American University’s Dana R. Fisher referenced recent surveys and concluded that “left-leaning Americans participating in peaceful, legally permitted demonstrations are starting to believe that political violence will be necessary to save America.”

“Tolerance – and even advocacy – for political violence appears to have surged, especially among politically left-leaning segments of the population,” agreed an April 2025 report from the Network Contagion Research Institute and the Rutgers University Social Perception Lab. The report called the phenomenon “assassination culture” and warned that “the online normalization of political violence may increasingly translate into offline action.”

Charlie Kirk’s assassination was a very unwelcome example of offline action.

So, will the political class keep beating war drums? Or will they step back from escalating the conflict? If they really seek to improve matters, politicians could start by shutting up and leaving us alone.

By the way, If you like this newsletter and want to support it, you can:

Contribute to Reason. This newsletter (and everything Reason produces) relies on the support of readers like you. Contributions help us spread commentary like this to more people.

Forward this newsletter. Know of someone who needs to read it? They can sign up for free at this link.

Before Post

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

J.D. Tuccille

Politicians Go Out of Their Way To Make Political Tensions Worse

Published on

Nobody wants to be governed by people who despise them.

J.D. Tuccille

At the Arizona memorial service for Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated two weeks ago, President Donald Trump acknowledged Kirk’s character, saying, “he did not hate his opponents; he wanted the best for them.” And then he added, “That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponents. And I don’t want the best for them.”

It was an honest moment if an awkward comment to make at a memorial service for a man murdered (to all appearances) by a political opponent. Like too much of the political class across the ideological spectrum, Trump is prone to despising those he disagrees with. It raises questions about why people should ever submit to the governance of those who hate them—and whether politicians realize that they’re a big part of what brought us to this unfortunate moment.

“It’s long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree,” Trump had told the nation on the day of Kirk’s assassination at a kinder and, perhaps, more self-aware moment. “This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today.”

In truth, that day Trump also put the blame for Kirk’s murder on “the radical left” and promised to “find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence,” hinting at something nastier than a criminal investigation. But for a moment, the president seemed to recognize that hating political opponents and wishing them ill might have unhappy consequences. For a moment.

Years of Politicians Despising Their Constituents

Trump isn’t alone in the political class when it comes to villainizing those who disagree or treating them as aliens in their own country and unworthy of respect. In a bizarre address to the nation in 2022, then-President Joe Biden lectured the country that “MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution” and “fan the flames of political violence.”

By that time, Biden had already accused his opponents of “semi-fascism.”

Kamala Harris, Biden’s unsuccessful successor as Democratic standard bearer in the 2024 presidential race, dropped the “semi” and went with “fascist” to describe her opponent.

That wasn’t the beginning of the dismissal of half the country by politicians courting the other half. Trump and his allies regularly accuse their opponents of anti-Americanism—”I really believe they hate our country,” Trump said in July. Trump’s 2016 Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, dismissed her foes as belonging in a “basket of deplorables” characterized as “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it.” And, as a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama sniffed at small-town dwellers as “bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.”

The result is that no matter which of the big political parties wins national office, around half the people over whom the victors exercise power know they’re governed by people who hate them – and they return the favor.

“I think that is something to be fearful of, the normalization of what can devolve into dehumanizing, inciting rhetoric,” James Druckman, a professor of political science and co-author of Partisan Hostility and American Democracy: Explaining Political Divisions and When They Mattercommented last year. “It has consequences for what people think of other groups. It has consequences for what people think of democracy.”

America’s Political Tribes Loathe Each Other

In terms of what Americans think of each other, we already know partisan hostility is intensifying.

“About three-quarters (73 percent) of voters who identify themselves as Republican agree that ‘Democrats are generally bullies who want to impose their political beliefs on those who disagree,'” a poll by the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics found in 2022. “An almost identical percentage of Democrats (74 percent) express that view of Republicans.”

In summarizing YouGov polls, Eli McKown-Dawson noted last year that “Democrats and Republicans are increasingly likely to dislike each other and to feel hostile toward members of the other political party.” Specifically, “85% of Democrats have an unfavorable opinion of the Republican Party, an increase of 16 percentage points since February 2023. The share of Republicans who view the Democratic Party unfavorably rose by a similar amount: 88% of Republicans feel unfavorably toward the Democratic Party, compared to 74% last year.”

Maybe it was inevitable that a political culture that has normalized “demonizing those with whom you disagree,” as Trump put it in the day of Kirk’s murder, would turn to force to settle disputes. That’s meant vandalism, arsonvehicle attacksattempted assassinations, and murders, such as those of Yaron Lischinsky, Sarah MilgrimBrian ThompsonMelissa Hortman, and Charlie Kirk.

There Has To Be a Better Way

This is insane, and it’s dangerous. Americans—people in general—should not be subject to the whims of those who despise them. We deserve better than to be governed by those who disdain what we believe and how we live. This is a big enough country that there’s no need to live at daggers-drawn alongside people whose values and preferences are so different they’d rather fight than find common ground.

For years, Americans have been moving to live in neighborhoods where they feel politically comfortable. “Our analysis suggests partisanship itself, intentional or not, plays a powerful role when Americans uproot and find a new home,” Ronda Kaysen and Ethan Singer wrote last year for The New York Times in a piece on Americans’ moving patterns. “In all but three states that voted for Mr. Biden in 2020, more Democrats have moved in than Republicans. The reverse is true for states Mr. Trump won.”

Rather than seethe at “deplorables” or those who “hate our country,” and instead of fighting with opponents for a brief opportunity to force policies on the unwilling before they do the same in return, perhaps our political class could turn their attention to those localities dominated by people willing to buy what they’re selling. They could leave the rest of us alone to live by different rules. That was, after all, how our federal system was designed to work—as separate experiments in laws and governance.

At Kirk’s memorial, Erika Kirk, Charlie’s widow, had a different message than that of Trump. “That young man,” she said of her husband’s assassin, “I forgive him.

That’s a kinder sentiment than I could summon in such circumstances. But nobody would be asked to extend such forgiveness if members of the political class could keep their loathing for people who disagree with them unvoiced and confine themselves to inflicting their views on willing followers.

By the way, If you like this newsletter and want to support it, you can: 

Contribute to Reason. This newsletter (and everything Reason produces) relies on the support of readers like you. Contributions help us spread commentary like this to more people. 

Forward this newsletter. Know of someone who needs to read it? They can sign up for free at this link.

Continue Reading

J.D. Tuccille

Signal Chat Controversy Is an Endorsement of Encryption Software

Published on

Logo

By

Popular encryption apps are probably secure if government officials rely on them.

The drama this week over the Trump administration Signal group chat about a strike on Houthis in Yemen in which The Atlantic Editor in Chief Jeffrey Goldberg was inadvertently included has been popcorn-worthy, if you’re into that sort of thing. But beyond the resultant posturing between screw-up bureaucrats and pompous politicians, we learned something of value from the incident: Government officials use the popular encrypted messaging app because the intelligence community considers it secure. While the political class argues over the details, the rest of us should consider that an endorsement of this technology.

Is It Snoop-Resistant?

Encryption software is widely used by businesspeople, journalists, and regular folks who don’t want to share the details of their lives and their finances with the world. But there’s always been speculation about how secure apps like Signal and Telegram are from government snoops who have the resources of surveillance agencies behind them. Are we just amusing the geeks at the NSA when we say nasty things about them to our colleagues via ProtonMail or WhatsApp?

One indication that private encryption software really is resistant to even sophisticated eavesdropping is the degree to which governments hate it. U.S. federal officials have long pushed for backdoor access to encrypted communications. Apple is currently battling British officials over that government’s requirements that the company compromise the encryption offered to users so that law enforcement can paw through private data. The Signal Foundation—creator of the open-source software at the center of the current controversy—threatened to leave the U.K. in 2023 during an earlier anti-encryption frenzy while Germany-based Tutanota said it would refuse to comply.

But then we got news of a group chat on Signal including such officials as Vice President J.D. Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and, of course, Goldberg as a plus-one. If administration officials including several from the intelligence community are willing to hold a conversation on the app, that’s important added testimony to the security of the software.

Endorsed by the CIA

Even more evidence came courtesy of the March 25 Senate Intelligence Committee Hearing on Worldwide Threats, during which attendees were understandably pressed to explain the incident and the use of Signal.

“One of the first things that happened when I was confirmed as CIA director was Signal was loaded onto my computer at the CIA, as it is for most CIA officers,” Ratcliffe told Sen. Mark Warner (D–Va.). “One of the things that I was briefed on very early, Senator, was by the CIA records management folks about the use of Signal as a permissible work use. It is. That is a practice that preceded the current administration, to the Biden administration.”

Later, in response to Sen. Martin Heinrich (D–N.M.), Ratcliffe added: “Signal is a permissible use, being used by the CIA. It has been approved by the White House for senior officials and recommended by CISA [the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency] for high level officials who would be targeted by foreign adversaries to use end-to-end encrypted apps whenever possible, like Signal.”

Whether all popular encryption software is equally secure isn’t clear. But Ratcliffe’s mention that officials are encouraged to use apps “like Signal” suggests it’s not the only one that’s reliable.

Nothing Will Save You From Your Own Carelessness

Of course, Jeffrey Goldberg got access to the hush-hush meeting anyway, but that wasn’t a failure of the software’s encryption. Goldberg was apparently included in the chat accidentally, by the invitation of National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, according to his own embarrassed admission.

“A staffer wasn’t responsible, and I take full responsibility,” Waltz told Fox News’s Laura Ingraham. “I built the group. My job is to make sure everything is coordinated.”

Waltz claimed he had Goldberg’s phone number in his contacts under the name of a government official who he intended to add to the meeting. Basically, the fault lies with Waltz’ mastery of contact lists and how to make sure you share confidential info only with those you want to have it.

“There’s no encryption software in the world that is going to prevent you from making a blunder if you directly send classified information to a journalist accidentally,” Northeastern University professor Ryan Ellis, who researches cybersecurity among other topics, commented on the matter.

Ellis and his Northeastern colleagues emphasize that Signal and government-developed communications platforms don’t differ regarding the security they offer for data but in “safeguards to prevent the sharing of information with individuals without the proper clearance.” Presumably, government software doesn’t draw on generic contact lists. That means there’s less opportunity for officials to unintentionally share secrets—or dick pics—with journalists and foreign operatives.

Popular With Everybody (Just Watch That Contact List)

That said, commercial encryption software is as popular among government officials as it is with the public. “The AP found accounts for state, local and federal officials in nearly every state, including many legislators and their staff, but also staff for governors, state attorneys general, education departments and school board members,” the news service reported last week in a piece that emphasized transparency concerns around the use of encryption by government officials. Like Ratcliffe, the A.P. noted that CISA “has recommended that ‘highly valued targets’—senior officials who handle sensitive information—use encryption apps for confidential communications.”

After news of the administration group-chat breach broke, Frederick Scholl, a professor of cybersecurity at Quinnipiac University, discussed several apps that people can use to keep their communications secure “including BriarSessionSignalSimpleXTelegramThreemaViber and Wire.”

That’s in addition to others including Meta’s WhatsApp. And encrypted RCS is replacing old-school SMS for basic text messages, though the transition isn’t complete. Even better, the new standard is supported by both Apple and Google so that encryption will work in conversations between Android and iPhone platforms.

Nothing is completely safe, of course. People developing security are in a constant race with those trying to compromise it. And, like Mike Waltz has discovered, nothing can save you from embarrassment if you invite the wrong person to the chat.

By the way, If you like this newsletter and want to support it, you can: 

Contribute to Reason. This newsletter (and everything Reason produces) relies on the support of readers like you. Contributions help us spread commentary like this to more people. 

Forward this newsletter. Know of someone who needs to read it? They can sign up for free at this link.

Continue Reading

Trending

X