This week has been a rough one for the conservative side. And it’s only gotten worse.
Now House Speaker Mike Johnson confessed who else is responsible for Charlie Kirk’s death.
Political Violence Condemned as Lawmakers Debate Rhetoric’s Role in Charlie Kirk’s Assassination
The assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk on September 10, at Utah Valley University by 22-year-old Tyler Robinson has sparked urgent calls to reject political violence and reevaluate the impact of inflammatory rhetoric in the U.S. The shooting, which ended a two-day manhunt with Robinson’s arrest, marks another grim chapter in a wave of attacks, including two 2024 assassination attempts on President Donald Trump and the June 2025 k*lling of a Minnesota Democratic state lawmaker. Lawmakers across the political spectrum agree that such violence threatens democracy, but divisions persist on whether heated rhetoric fuels these acts and how to address it, with a clear consensus emerging: political violence must be unequivocally condemned to prevent further tragedy.
Lawmakers’ Responses and Calls for Unity
Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) emphasized collective responsibility, telling Fox News Digital, “This is on all of us, right? I mean, you know, everyone’s been ramping up the rhetoric, right? If the left is going to blame the right, and the right is going to blame the left, and we’re going to continue to say ‘It’s your fault,’ and we’re not collectively going to try to bring it down together, then this cycle is just going to continue to go on.” His plea for bipartisan de-escalation reflects a sentiment that finger-pointing perpetuates division, allowing violence to fester.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) reinforced this, stating, “I’m trying to turn the temperature down around here. I always do that. I’ve been very consistent.” Similarly, Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) told Fox News Digital that reining in hostile rhetoric is “always a conversation with people in leadership,” adding, “And it should be in both parties to make sure that you don’t incite this kind of an activity.” Barrasso cautioned that inflammatory language could exploit mental instability, though the motive behind Robinson’s actions remains under investigation.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) urged unity, saying, “This is a time that all Americans should come together and feel and mourn what happened. Violence affects so many different people, so many different political persuasions. It is an infliction on America, and coming together is what we ought to be doing, not pointing fingers to blame.” His call for solidarity echoes a shared recognition that political violence harms the nation as a whole, regardless of partisan lines.
Rhetoric’s Role and Historical Parallels
Some lawmakers, like Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), directly tied Kirk’s k*lling to toxic rhetoric, claiming it played “a lot” in the tragedy. He criticized terms like “N*zi” and “fascist,” saying, “You say you’re a N*zi and a fascist and a threat to democracy, how does that help? If you disagree on issues, that’s one thing, but [you’re] not saying that. The left is a poster child.” Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), who knew Kirk for a decade, lamented the loss of a figure who “stood for the open exchange of ideas,” arguing, “We don’t have to be mad at each other because we have a different point of view, let alone escalate the violence.” Moreno pointed to comparisons of Republicans to Hitler and fascists, stating, “You send a message to crazy people, that says, ‘You’re actually doing a good deed if you k*ll somebody who would otherwise be a N*zi and a fascist who will end our democracy.’”
President Trump, addressing the nation on September 10, partly blamed Democratic rhetoric, saying, “Those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to N*zis and the world’s worst mass m*rderers and criminals.” On Fox & Friends on September 12, he doubled down, asserting, “I’ll tell you something that’s gonna get me in trouble, but I couldn’t care less. The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don’t want to see crime. The radicals on the left are the problem.” His remarks drew pushback from those advocating for nonpartisan solutions, who argue blame fuels division.
Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-Md.) drew parallels to the 1960s, a period marked by the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr., Medgar Evers, John F. Kennedy, and Robert F. Kennedy, noting, “The message was love and not violence. So, you know, returning to a message like that could be good, but it didn’t change the outcome of the assassinations during that era. So, I don’t know that there’s an easy answer.” Ivey’s reflection captures the challenge of breaking the cycle of violence, even with calls for peace.
The Path Forward: Rejecting Violence
Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, was k*lled during a campus event aimed at fostering civil debate, a mission that made his death particularly poignant. Tyler Robinson, arrested on September 12 after confessing to his father and a youth pastor, used a bolt-action rifle inscribed with anti-fascist messages, including “Hey fascist! Catch!” and lyrics from “Bella Ciao,” suggesting a politically motivated act. The FBI’s ongoing investigation seeks to clarify his motives, but the incident has intensified fears of escalating political violence.
Lawmakers agree that such acts, whether targeting conservatives like Kirk or Democrats like the Minnesota lawmaker, demand a unified stand against violence. The 2024 attempts on Trump’s life and other attacks underscore the urgency of this moment. By rejecting inflammatory rhetoric and embracing dialogue, as Kirk advocated, leaders can honor his legacy and work toward a safer, less divided America. Failure to do so risks perpetuating a cycle that threatens the nation’s democratic fabric.
