From the Center
This piece is from a writer rated Center.
The recent assassination of Charlie Kirk has shaken the globe, regardless of your political bias. Vigils for his death have been held around the world, from college campuses across America to Western Europe and Australia.
His death marks a ‘turning point’ for many, with millions turning their attention to the conversation of polarization, and what its proliferation means for the world.
Polarization, while often waved as a phenomenon of recent times, is not simply a product of the Trump and Biden administrations, or the technological revolution. It’s also often a concerted effort that uses these new circumstances as its mode of augmentation.
Certain figures from TV networks to social media to American politics have exploited the recent turmoil, further deepening the instability. A growing number of influencers, pundits, and politicians now profit – both in power and in money – by urging Americans to view their opponents as less than human.
Instances of polarizing rhetoric from the Right and Left may leave viewers stunned. Leftist streamer, Hasan Piker, recently said “America deserved 9/11,” and that landlords should be murdered for being capitalists - comments he later claimed were satire. Conservative talk show host, Steven Crowder, has also recently called for “lawful violence” against the Left, as the Right is allegedly being “hunted.”
Individuals like these are examples of ‘polarization entrepreneurs’, and they may be the single greatest threat to American prosperity of the modern day.
The Problem on the Left
Both the Left and the Right aim to advance their ideologies and secure major victories for their elected officials. They often achieve this by using shallow rhetoric to attack opponents, making their own side appear more moral and virtuous.
This is a trademark of the polarization entrepreneur, and these tactics run deep in mainstream and alternative media, as well as in everyday conversation. There’s a good chance that many polarization entrepreneurs are oblivious to the division they sow and the chaos they incite; and the Left is under fervent attack for exactly this.
Many critics are vocal about the Left’s failure to condemn violence, with many citing a YouGov poll reporting 77% of Republicans believed it to be “unacceptable” to be happy about the death of a public figure you disagree with, while only 33% of Democrats said the same.
After Kirk’s death, the Democrats have found themselves divided, with some Democrats becoming more outspoken about Kirk’s rhetoric while Republicans bash them for ‘hypocrisy.’ "Every single House Republican voted to condemn the murders in Minnesota”, wrote Randy Fine (R-FL), “meanwhile, 58 House Democrats refused to condemn the murder of Charlie Kirk. Another 38 put their hands in their pockets. Those 96 need to be held accountable.”
Several Democrats including former Vice President Kamala Harris, along with several mainstream media outlets have referred to President Donald Trump as a fascist or Nazi hundreds or even thousands of times. This rhetoric led many Democrats to leave the party in 2024 and prompted Republicans to raise the question: Since Nazis are detestable, if you call Republicans like Trump and Kirk Nazis, why wouldn’t people want to kill them?
Between 2020 and 2024, amidst the Biden administration and the Democrats’ efforts to smear Donald Trump before the election, the Democrat party lost 2.1 million registered voters while the Republican party gained nearly two and a half million, according to the Guardian (Left Bias).
It should come as no surprise that this exodus from the Democrat party may be related to comments made by popular Democrat supporters like Jimmy Kimmel, who was temporarily removed over potentially ‘insensitive’ comments about the death of Charlie Kirk.
Kimmel said on ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’, “the Maga gang [is] desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them”, suggesting that Tyler Robinson was a member of the far-Right even amongst present evidence suggesting that Robinson was a leftist.
Democrat supporters like Stephen King have also embarrassed the Democrats as of recently, as King was ‘canceled’ for defamatory lies about Charlie Kirk, stating in a post on X that “He advocated stoning gays to death. Just sayin’.” King apologized for his comment which referred to Bible verses from Leviticus, which King claims can be “cherry picked” to spread a certain message.
This type of rhetoric is precisely why many of those on the Left have fallen out of relation with the party, with stark leftist Bernie Sanders being the first to comment on Democrat alienation of their constituents, following the 2024 election, by focusing too much on identity politics and wealthy donors.
Certain Left-wing writers for newspapers such as The Atlantic (Left bias) can be polarization entrepreneurs too. Before the 2024 election, The Atlantic published a piece called “A BRIEF HISTORY OF TRUMP’S VIOLENT REMARKS,” which included quotes from 2016 like “I’d like to punch him in the face.”
It would be one thing if the Atlantic also included Biden’s remarks of beating “the hell” out of Trump if they were in high school, or Sen. John Tester telling constituents to “punch him in the face.” However, omitting these comments only perpetuates divisive media behaviors and fails to show the whole story.
While the Left is public enemy number one on many alternative media pundit platforms, the Right has also played its part in fueling polarization.
Right-Wing Hypocrisies
Some polarization entrepreneurs are quite blatant, while others are more subtle, flying under the radar and radicalizing voters without their knowledge. Americans now are quick to blame the provocative Left, however, one of the most open and flamboyant polarization entrepreneurs to date is President Donald Trump.
Staunch allies of Donald Trump today were often some of his most fervent opponents prior. Lindsey Graham, now a Trump ally, said before Trump’s first term, “he is not offering solutions to hard, complicated problems. He is basically selling fear and prejudice.” Despite largely agreeing with Trump, his own supporters can agree that Trump’s rhetoric is often flippant and occasionally staggering.
Trump exhibited this behavior at Charlie Kirk’s memorial service, announcing, “I hate my opponent and I don't want the best for them.” These comments portray Trump as a deeply divisive presidential figure, willing to say unashamedly that he hates political opposition – approximately half of Americans or more. These types of comments are typically waved by supporters as jokes or just part of his humor.
New Hampshire Governor, Chris Sununu, a Trump defender, admitted in 2024, “I don't like the profanity, I don't like personal attacks, I don't like any of that stuff”, but when it comes to Trump, "it's just par for the course.”
Some critics contend that the Trump Administration’s decision to lower flags to half-mast over the weekend was a bad-faith gesture – one that may imply individuals on the Left, such as Melissa and Mark Hortman, who were stalked and murdered for their political views, are not accorded the same moral or human worth as Kirk.
The death of Charlie Kirk reignited conversations about the Left labeling Trump a fascist, with conservative voices asserting that this rhetoric from the Left led to Kirk’s death. It has even sparked debate over whether political violence is most prominently a Leftist behavior or if both sides are to blame.
Senator Eric Schmidt tweeted this week on X, “I am done with the "both sides" bullshit. The overwhelming majority of political violence comes from the Left--this is a sickness and it must be addressed.”
This comment is ironically followed up by the Trump administration's decision to quietly remove “from its website a study showing far-right extremists were responsible for the bulk of ideologically motivated deaths,” reported by The Hill (Center) and many others.
The Center for Strategic International Studies (Center) reported shocking terrorist statistics since 1994 that speak to possible hypocrisies:
“First, far-right terrorism has significantly outpaced terrorism from other types of perpetrators, including from far-left networks and individuals inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. Right-wing attacks and plots account for the majority of all terrorist incidents in the United States since 1994, and the total number of right-wing attacks and plots has grown significantly during the past six years”.
The Cato Institute (Lean-Right Bias) also recently reported that of the 81 terrorism-related murders over the last five years, over half have been inflicted by Right-wing terrorists, with Left-wingers accounting for 22% and Islamists accounting for 21%.
However, conservative journalist and talk show host, Steven Crowder, contended these statistics, claiming these statistics do not account for 20+ deaths associated with the George Floyd riots in 2020, alongside Darrel Brooks’ motor vehicle attack in Waukesha killing six and injuring 70, and the 2020 Portland shooting associated with Antifa.
The former data has allowed media outlets to paint the Right as being more violent, claiming violence by the Right is more prevalent than that on the Left. However, a 2021 investigation by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security found that among domestic terrorist incidents in the US between 2015 and 2019, ‘anarchist violent extremism,’ associated with the Left, were “among extremists presenting the greatest threats of violence.”
While Crowder’s claims may be substantiated, Crowder also failed to denounce and condemn the attack against Nancy Pelosi’s husband as Right-wing political violence in an interview with Piers Morgan, highlighting hypocrisies and polarizing us versus them messaging.
This coincides with news of Donald Trump intending to designate Antifa, a far-Left ‘anti-fascist’ group, as a major terrorist organization. This is speculated to be a response to Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson’s alleged affiliation with the group, however, Reuters (Center) reported “no evidence has emerged connecting 22-year-old Tyler Robinson with any outside group.”
Republicans also scrutinized those on the Left claiming Robinson was a far-Right ‘Groyper’, associated with controversial streamer Nicholas Fuentes.
RELATED: How Can We Categorize Tyler Robinson’s Political Ideology?.
This follows Republican attempts to paint Vance Boelter, the assassin who killed Minnesotan lawmakers this summer, as a leftist and Tim Walz associate. These claims stemmed from Walz appointing Boelter to the Minnesota Governor's Workforce Development Board six years prior.
Boelter’s hit-list included various other pro-abortion Democrats such as Tim Walz, Ilhan Omar, Tina Smith, and Angie Creg, according to Axios (Lean-Left) and ABC News (Lean Left).
Hypocrisy lies within Republicans’ condemnation of the Left for making claims about Robinson’s true affiliation, while the Right did the same for Boelter just months before.
These realities in no way dismiss the atrocities inflicted by Tyler Robinson, however the narrative that the ‘far-Left’ is unequivocally guilty for political violence is a claim that just doesn’t stick – and is divisive by nature.
The polarizing techniques by actors like Senator Eric Schmidt or Donald Trump which proclaim one partisan affiliation is totally and undeniably the cause of all political violence is unproductive and radicalizing. Obfuscation is simply a venture to sow division among Americans in the name of strengthening one party over the other.
There should be a consensus that both the Left and the Right must answer for political violence perpetuated by their constituents – especially when it is the rhetoric of the party’s leaders that likely lead to this behavior.
The rhetoric of Trump and Schmidt are stellar examples of how rhetoric can lead to division and potentially further political violence.
The Student Solution
American politics is about selling a solution, and to sell a solution, there must be a big problem to solve. To sell your solution, you must first get elected, and to get elected you must get voters to show up and vote.
Who shows out to vote the most effectively? Those who are angry, and oftentimes radicalized. Thus, you must find a way to rile up and radicalize voters. This presents an industry up for grabs: the polarization industry.
Where there are needs, there are entrepreneurs, and the job of a polarization entrepreneur is to make voters angry enough to pick a side and cast a ballot.
What if we could teach people that while anger might win elections, it doesn’t solve problems. Before we can address critical issues in America such as inequality, racism, immigration, etc., we must address polarization.
The average age of an American congressperson is 58-59 years old. At this point, writing to your congressman won’t change their mind – they are too far entrenched to ask for progress. Instead, we must turn to our youth.
Today our youth have been thrown to the wolves, with deep obfuscation of American politics lurking around every corner. There is no telling what or why we should believe one side or the other.
High school and college students are graduating without any certainty of their economic futures, and they are additionally being frontloaded with a devastating political divide.
Ideological disputes smear the morals and character of many young people, creating a fear of politics and a lack of steward leadership. To address the damage caused by corrupt polarization entrepreneurs who dominate Washington and the media, we must place our hope in those who have not yet been corrupted.
The American youth are young and ambitious, with a dripping passion to fix what the previous generations have destroyed, and it must begin on college campuses. Organizations like Pathway America and BridgeUSA are fighting on campuses for productive dialogue, free and impactful speech, and responsible leadership – and will lead the charge towards a more united America.
Gabriel James is a content intern for AllSides. He has a Center bias.
Reviewed by Jonathan Held, News and Bias Analyst (Lean Right bias), Emanuel Macuixtle, Policy Analyst and Research Assistant (Left bias), and Editor-in-chief Henry A. Brechter (Center bias).
