In the Wake of Tragedy, Prudence—Not Wishful Thinking
In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s tragic assassination, we have heard renewed calls from conservatives urging forgiveness and a “lowering of the temperature.”
Every decent person longs for a return to civic peace. But civility cannot be restored by exhortation alone. Too often, calls to “lower the temperature” serve as a substitute for naming the real, persistent patterns of political violence that threaten our common life.
In recent years, America has borne witness to a series of ideologically motivated attacks: the riots of 2020 that left dozens dead; repeated assaults on churches and pro-life centers; and the horrific mass shooting at a Catholic school by a transgender-identified attacker. The alleged assassin of Charlie Kirk reportedly sympathized with Antifa, which the federal government has since designated as a domestic terrorist group. Yet such episodes are too often treated as isolated tragedies rather than as symptoms of a deeper and ongoing problem.
While left-wing violence has become disturbingly normalized in some quarters, it is also true that instances of right-wing violence have occurred, from the 2019 El Paso Walmart shooting targeting Hispanic shoppers to the 2022 attack on Paul Pelosi. That such acts appear across the political spectrum should remind us that militant extremism, whatever its banner, corrodes the foundations of civic trust. The danger lies in the growing belief, on either side, that moral or political righteousness justifies bloodshed.
Acknowledging this pattern is not a call for partisanship but for clarity. The rule of law exists to protect all citizens. Federal and state authorities already possess the tools needed to investigate and dismantle violent extremist networks. Citizens, for their part, should remain vigilant against real threats while rejecting both vigilantism and scapegoating.
History teaches that ignoring political violence does not make it go away. Argentina’s ‘Dirty War’ is instructive: persistent left-wing guerrilla violence in the 1970s provoked brutal right-wing reprisals, corroding civic trust and paving the way for military rule. The junta’s atrocities illustrate that when governments fail to act against ideologically driven violence, citizens may accept tyranny in the name of order.
Additionally, we must be clear-eyed about the nature of the threat. Some commentators on the right, such as Chris Rufo and Pam Bondi in recent tweets and articles, have pointed to internet memes or edgy online subcultures as the root of the problem. But memes do not carry out shootings. The real danger comes from extremist individuals and networks—and from those in civic life who excuse or minimize violence when it is aimed at their political opponents. A serious response requires focusing on these concrete actors, not scapegoating the medium.
Recognizing the risks conservatives sometimes face at public events should not lead to militias or vigilantism. Rather, it should encourage a culture of resilience. There is something deeply wholesome in young men forming clubs devoted to weight-lifting, hiking, and disciplined martial arts training. Such associations cultivate strength, loyalty, and calm under pressure—the very traits that sustain a free people in times of crisis. They are schools of virtue as much as of fitness. Conservative youth organizations, such as TPUSA, ought not merely to permit but to actively sponsor and normalize this form of civic training among their members. This is not political militancy but civic preparedness: the channelling of youthful vigor into habits that make men capable of defending life, order, and neighbor within the rule of law.
Prudence therefore demands a two-fold response: vigorous, lawful action by government to suppress organized political violence—most urgently the forms that now threaten public order from the left—and a corresponding effort on the right to foster brotherhoods of civic virtue, ready in body and spirit to defend themselves and others within the bounds of law.
Calls for civility must be joined with an honest reckoning with the sources of violence. Only then can we hope to preserve both liberty and peace in the American public square.
