The US is at a dangerous crossroads after Charlie Kirk shooting

It was a brutal week in America, and I am not the only one who wonders whether the country could get out of this cycle of hatred and violence.

After one of the most incendiary assassinations in the history of the United States, Utah State governor appealed to the Americans to reject the political temperature.

But hardly anyone who has spoken to him since the death of Charlie Kirk believes this is the way the country will choose. Not any time soon, at least.

Modern history is full of examples in which America chose not to gather after a tragedy. This did not happen 14 years ago A member of the Democratic Congress was shot in her head In Arizona. Not eight years ago, when a A member of the Republican Congress was shot during the exercise.

The Americans did not meet in the face of a global pandemic. In fact, Kofid made divisions worse.

The reason is simple, but it is difficult to change. The incentives that feed American political life are equivalent to people and platforms that show heat, and not those who seek tensions.

Throughout the country, it is likely to be elected to political positions if you are committing policies and discourse that appeals to your political base, instead of the political milieu (it is the frustrated secondary output of the fashion sin – the original sin behind the dysfunctional policy,).

On an equal footing, in the media, people who wear policy are rewarded to be more extreme and destroy anger – this is the way to get more eyes, and ultimately, more dollars in advertising.

This incentive structure is what makes the governor of Utah Spencer Cox something an American exception.

After the killing of Charlie Kerk, the Americans urged “to log out, stop, touch the grass, hug a family member, exit and do good in society.”

It seemed very sane, very healthy – effort, in a sea of ​​division, in reconciliation.

The division and political violence are not a new phenomenon in America. About 160 years ago, the country went to war with itself and never stopped.

For five years in the 1960s, an American president was killed and then killed his brother during his campaign to become a president. During this same period, two of the country’s most prominent civil rights leaders were assassinated as well.

In the 1970s, President Gerald Ford was shot on two separate occasions. In the eighties of the last century, Ronald Reagan was shot as a bullet while walking to his limits.

Of course, last year, Trump was a victim of a failed attempt in his life by a gunman in Pennsylvania – and a second alleged attempt by an armed in Florida, who began trial in the week killing Kirk.

What makes this era completely different from the 1960s and 1970s, though, is what the Governor Cox worries.

Although he carefully moved away from saying things that would divide the Americans, he was not so nice with social media companies to the point that he blames this tragedy clearly.

“I think social media has played a direct role in every assassination and assassination attempt that we have seen over the past five years, six years,” Cox said in an interview on Sunday.

He went on to say that “cancer” is likely to be very weak for what it did to American society.

Most technology companies remain quiet in their official capabilities. However, Elon Musk, the billionaire head of X, was weighing, claiming that “the radical left celebrates cold blood, Charlie Kerk,” adding, “Unity is impossible with the evil fanatics who celebrate the death.”

It has also been published about the impact of social media, on the pretext: “While sometimes the discussion can become negative, it is still good to have a discussion.”

The pitfalls of this system, which mixes social media with politics, relates to even those who are most passionate about politics, regardless of those who support it.

Earlier this week, the 19 -year -old Kaitlin Griffits has developed: “Social media is definitely a truly difficult thing for our society.

“You can not even convert with someone who does not agree with your political beliefs – and I only think this is tragicly tragic.”

The tragic and ridiculous, since Kerk saw himself as a hero of freedom of expression, even with his critics often with this framework. His death, although it may push the country beyond civilian discourse.

Within days of Kirk’s death, political camps in the country fell to opposition accounts.

Many on the left eager to explore the ways that Kirk murderer may be extremist by the sub -culture of the Internet and the group chats. On the right, many prefer to empty whether the suspect is part of a left -wing plot.

None of the group looks particularly eager to give priority to reconciliation or recovery.

The fact is that those who study extremism believe that the left right may not even be the most useful way to consider dividing this current moment.

“It is better to look at what makes people cannot judge,” says Rachel Kleinfield, an older colleague in Carnegie International Peace, who specializes in polarized democracies.

“It takes a desire to refuse the temperature … [and] It requires people to have a little courage than they appear.

“I think it is useful to focus more on how to turn us as a community into a page and open a new chapter, because this is like a bad marriage. Like a bad marriage, you can only lose by directing the fingers.”

As for the issue of whether America can destroy the algorithms that raise divisions, this will take a tremendous force leader with a tremendous commitment to reconciliation.

“I am not sure how to withdraw from this,” politics writer David Duker told me. “It is useful for both sides to agree – and through the parties” on the parties “only political figures – to stop the accusations and say” stop “only.”

“Usually the president can only facilitate this. In the absence of the two agreements that agree on the presence of some lines that should not be crossed, or in the absence of the next president, I am not sure how we get there.”

Trump is not this type of president. It often seems stronger, politically, when he has a fighting discount.

I understand that Trump believes that people on the left want to destroy his Maga movement. Since the death of Kirk, he took a completely different tone from the governor of Utah.

“I will tell you something that will get a problem, but I couldn’t care less,” he said. “Extremists are often extremists because they do not want to see the crime … extremists on the left are the problem.”

He went further in his oval office’s observations after Kirk was killed: “The extreme left political violence has affected many innocent people and took a lot of lives.”

Other White House officials repeat that the president’s framing – was not just an act of the twisted individual but from the radical left on a wider scale – repeated by White House officials.

“With God, as my watch, we will use every resource we have … to determine these networks, disrupt, disassem and destroy them,” said Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of Staff.

“This will happen, and we will do so in the name of Charlie.”

However, there are a number of studies In the political killings and violence in the United States-for several decades-it indicates that more cases have been implemented by people who have more “right” ideologies than “left”, although more data is necessary to extract a fixed conclusion.

Some of the people I spoke to refer to dark times in our history as a source of rest.

“It was a few periods in America more dark or violent than the years [in the 1960s and early 1970s] Joe Scarboro told me that a former Republican Congress member, who was formed by Vietnam Watergate “has turned into an influential TV host.

“But the country moved forward, celebrated Pictenis, and moved beyond its violent divisions. It will do it again.”

Among the optimists to whom she spoke, Democratic Senator Raphael Warroc of Georgia, one of the senior black officials in the country. He condemned political violence as the most “hostile to democracy”, but he also reminded me of the progress made by America on issues such as race.

He told me: “The story of any family is always more complicated than the stories that we tell ourselves in the family reunification.”

“My father had to give up his seat [on a bus] While he was wearing a soldier’s uniform to a teenager, but I am now sitting in the Senate seat. “

Their hope is a fan – but I still don’t see a clear way.

Recently, I was thinking a lot about a conversation I had earlier this year with historian Ken Burns, as America is preparing to celebrate the 250th anniversary of its founding.

Burns told me: “People say that history repeats itself.” “It is unprecedented.”

Instead, Burns prefers a quote that many attributed to the writer Mark Twain: “History does not repeat itself, but it is often righteous.” In other words, even if the present looks like the past – things do not happen in the same way.

This moment of tension looks like rhymes with many other periods of disagreement in American history, but they do not completely repeat them.

Yes, American history is full of anger and conflict – but I am not sure that the social and political systems of this country have always been very fast in the bonus of companies and people hunting these feelings.

At the same time, the United States will become weaker, not greater.

Former Defense Secretary Bob Gates once told me that the three largest threats to American national security were emerging China, and Russia and the country’s internal divisions rejected.

American opponents are certainly knowing the amount of its divisions that damage this great power. They are working hard online for more people. And Americans make it easy for them.

The highest credit image: Justin Sullivan/Getty Imachur

BBC It is the home on the site and the application to get the best analysis, with new views that challenge the assumptions and deep reports on the biggest issues of the day. We offer a thinking content from all over BBC Sounds and IPlayer as well. You can send us your notes in the INDTH section by clicking the button below.