Posted on Monday, September 22, 2025
|
by David Catron
|
1 Comments
|
In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, there have been many calls for “unity” from a wide variety of politicians, pundits, and other public figures. This sounds reasonable enough, but it begs the following question: Unity with whom? Are Republicans expected to hold hands with Democrats and sing “Kumbaya” knowing that a significant percentage of the latter are willing to inflict violence on the former to achieve their political goals? That is not unity. It is appeasement.
Multiple surveys and studies have shown that today’s Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say political violence is acceptable. Earlier this month, YouGov released a poll that asked respondents, “Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to resort to violence in order to achieve political goals?” Among those who described themselves as “very liberal,” 25 percent answered, “Yes.” Among the “very conservative” respondents, only three percent answered that question in the affirmative.
The optimist might respond that “only” 25 percent of “very liberal” respondents answered “yes.” But shouldn’t we be concerned that fully one-quarter of any subset of the population supports political violence against their fellow citizens?
In addition to showing that liberals overall are eight times more likely to approve of political violence than are conservatives, the survey also suggests that the former are delusional about who perpetrates most of the mayhem. Pollsters raised the issue of left-wing violence versus right-wing violence and asked the respondents, “Which is a bigger problem in America today?” Liberal respondents said that 75 percent of political violence is committed by people on the right.
How is it possible to achieve national unity around a shared set of American values if so many leftists are this far out of touch with reality? As Vice President JD Vance said when he hosted Charlie Kirk’s radio show last Monday, “I’m desperate for our country to be united in condemnation of the actions and the ideas that killed my friend. I want it so badly that I will tell you a difficult truth. We can only have it [unity] with people who acknowledge that political violence is unacceptable.”
For politicians, that doesn’t mean posting empty bromides on X, as former Vice President Kamala Harris did after Charlie Kirk was murdered. “Political violence has no place in America,” she wrote. “I condemn this act, and we all must work together to ensure this does not lead to more violence.”
That might have some meaning if Harris had apologized for contributing to the left’s incendiary rhetoric by calling President Trump a “fascist” after he survived two assassination attempts. But as is, her words were deafeningly hollow.
It is not a coincidence that the rifle used by Charlie Kirk’s assassin contained bullet casings etched with phrases like, “Hey fascist! CATCH!” There is no separating this creepy stuff from inflammatory rhetoric by Democrats like Harris and her feckless running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who salted his campaign speeches with claims that Trump is “a fascist to his core.” Such accusations aren’t unifying, as Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) pointed out during a Wednesday Senate hearing:
“Earlier this year, a poll found that more than 55 percent of people on the left believed that it would be at least somewhat justified to murder Donald Trump. These are not just some abstractions on a page. These are our fellow citizens. How can we come together with people who believe these things?”
Unity will be particularly difficult as long as Democrats like former President Barack Obama continue to lie about the causes of political polarization and violence. Speaking at a Tuesday event in Pennsylvania, he implied that the real cause of political violence in America is the Trump administration: “When I hear not just our current president, but his aides, who have a history of calling political opponents vermin, enemies who need to be targeted, that speaks to a broader problem that we have right now.”
The left has a term for this kind of rhetoric: “victim blaming.” While they like to constantly hurl that accusation at conservatives, this is yet another case of liberal projection.
The “problem we have right now” is Republicans and their supporters getting shot and killed. Trump was shot, Charlie Kirk was killed. Yet Obama dredged up an out-of-context excerpt from a 2023 Trump speech – a speech not about his political opponents, but about radical left groups funded by the likes of George Soros and unethical prosecutors who tried to jail a former president to prevent him from running again.
All of which brings us back to the difference between appeasement and unity. Appeasement requires us, in the name of unity, to get along with people who have no intention of getting along with us.
Fittingly, “appeasement” entered the popular English lexicon when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement with Adolf Hitler in the absurd hope that the latter would honor the deal and allow Europe to remain at peace. Instead, it encouraged Nazi aggression and led to World War II.
The politicians and other public figures – on the left and the right – who call for unity without defining a specific set of American values to unify around are just as deluded as Chamberlain. Republicans and Independents generally believe in representative democracy and the individual rights enshrined in the Constitution. Leading Democrats, on the other hand, increasingly regard the Constitution as an impediment to the flowering of a vaguely defined utopia in which the state provides “social justice” and “equity.”
The latter vision is favored by a relatively small percentage of the population, but these people don’t feel bound by civility or even the rule of law. Consequently, as we have seen, they are perfectly willing to employ violence to “fundamentally transform” the nation.
In the end, this militant minority will never accept genuine unity. Instead, the best hope for the country is for decent Americans to unify around the traditional values and principles upon which this nation was founded – and unify against those who seek to destroy them.
David Catron is a Senior Editor at the American Spectator. His writing has also appeared in PJ Media, the American Thinker, the Providence Journal, the Catholic Exchange and a variety of other publications.
Read full article here