'June Cleaver' - an image now ridiculed by the left |
That is why Charlie Kirk, a 31-year-old MAGA Republican
whose meteoric rise to fame and popularity made him a target. He was gunned down
at a Utah Valley State University by an assassin’s bullet -
a single shot to the neck. Law enforcement officials are saying there is no
doubt this was a politically motivated, targeted shooting. (The latest information
is that the assassin is now in custody.)
The question is: how did it get to be this way? Why have we
become so polarized that assassins are popping up on both sides of the
political aisle to kill prominent people whose politics are the polar opposite
of theirs?
Sadly, one of the things Kirk was trying to do was open up
debate between the two sides. He was willing to listen to the other side and
argue his own. That is what many of his rallies were all about,
That used to be the way disagreements were handled. People
would disagree, discuss, and then go on their merry way. Often remaining the
best of friends. I still operate this way. I am close friends with people whose
views are the exact opposite of mine, and we get along quite nicely.
There is a lot of blame being placed on rhetoric from both
sides. Rhetoric that vilifies people with opposing views. But I don’t think
that’s the cause. I think it’s a symptom of something much deeper: the radical
change in liberal values over the last few decades.
The differences between liberals and conservatives (in this
sense I mean social conservatives) used to be relatively minor by today’s
standards, so each side could tolerate the other without any real rancor. But
as liberal values kept edging further into radical progressive territory that
defines them today, most conservatives held their ground - since their values
were based on biblical principles not subject to change.
So the gap kept widening to the point where people with
conservative values could no longer tolerate the lengths to which people with
liberal values had gone. Where in the past many values were shared, today that
is far less the case. Progressive values championed by the entertainment industry and promoted
by the liberal media have taken hold and dominating the culture. Values that
once were shared are now vilified.
The greatest impact of this phenomenon has been in the area
of family values. Just a few short decades ago, ‘family’ meant a married couple
with children. The idea of having pre-marital
sex was considered immoral. (Even though
it probably happened a lot more than people realized back then.) Today having
sex before marriage is considered a good idea.
TV programs in the 50s had to abide by standards and practices
consistent with cultural values of that time.
Women’s clothing were far more modestly designed back then. Even
bathing suits were more modest. There was no such thing as a bikini. In the 50s
one would be hard pressed to find a woman wearing pants in the street. Today, one
can easily find women wearing any version of immodest clothing they choose in the
street.
The definition of a man or woman was unchallenged. There was
no such thing as ‘gender identity’. One was the sex with which they were born.
Those who had gender dysphoria were believed to be a tiny minority to be pitied
at best. The idea of gay marriage was completely unacceptable, even to
liberals. A gay pride parade would never have happened in the 50s. They would
have been arrested if they tried.
As recently as the Clinton era, gays in the military were
accepted ONLY if they were not openly gay. That was the purpose of President
Clinton’s ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. But today, the left considers that
policy an infringement on the civil rights of gay people.
The idea of allowing biological men to use women’s bathrooms
was once considered immoral even by liberals. Today they demand it! Sex reassignment surgery was considered
mutilation of the body. Today it is promoted as a solution for gender dysphoria.
Conservatives have not wavered in their opposition to many
of these things. That is what I believe MAGA Republicans mean by “Make America
Great Again.” They found that phrase, coined by candidate Trump during his
first campaign, perfectly fit their worldview. They wanted to return to a time
when more of their values were accepted by the mainstream—before those views
were reshaped by powerful media and entertainment forces that now promote
progressive values like gender identity politics.
During the last election, the mantra of the Democratic Party
was “We won’t go back.” By that they meant America had “progressed” too far to
return to the values once held by the majority—values the progressive elite see
as intolerant and outdated. They were not going to go back to a time of
rejection of gay and transgender people.
So now there is far more anger on both sides. The right
thinks the left has gone down the path of the devil, and the left thinks the
right is reverting to the bigoted policies of the past.
That could very well have been the motive behind the
assassin who killed Charlie Kirk. He may have seen a man who was becoming
increasingly successful in “turning back the clock” to the so-called dark ages
of the 1950s. He may have believed he was doing a public service by stopping
Kirk in his tracks—all for the sake of equality, maybe even “saving lives” that
might otherwise be lost to suicide if society returned to a time when gay and
transgender people were not seen as completely normal.
By the same token, the right wing fanatic who killed liberal
Minnesota legislator Melissa Hortman and her husband must have believed he was acting zealously
for God.
The rhetoric on both sides surely contributes to the anger
and frustration. But the root cause of the polarization, in my view, is the
continual trek down the progressive road that has widened the break with values
once shared with conservative counterparts. Trump and Sanders are only the
voices articulating that break.
The guy who shot Kirk does not appear to be a leftist ideologue. He is a democratized goof who has spent much of his time playing games in the Internet and engaging with other fantasists in cosplay activities. Some of the messages he apparently engraved on his rifle cartridges were leftist mottos; others were the opposite, including one engraving that said, “If you read this you’re gay, LMAO.”
ReplyDeleteWhile the shooter might have some leftist sympathies, he apparently has no history of political activism. He hasn’t voted recently and is not affiliated with any political group of any sort. He comes across as the usual sort of suspect in these cases: young, white, male, from a conservative rural family, not many real-life friends, quietly but desperately crazy, exceedingly dangerous to all others when he starts thinking too much.