The first solo editorial of last semester was written by my co-editor, Caleb Metzler, following the death of Charlie Kirk. In that piece, he wrote against political violence and encouraged stricter gun control. We are once again at a place in the United States where political violence is at the forefront of many minds. This time around, it is a different kind of violence, a type that has haunted our country since its founding. This is a systematic violence being carried out by the state against the people. 

I think it is important, with any serious conversation, to first clarify exactly what you are talking about. Political violence, according to the World Health Organization, is “the deliberate use of power and force to achieve political goals.” With this definition in mind, it becomes obvious how expansive this term really is. Violence is so widespread, and politics are so all-consuming, that the net of political violence as a term is cast ever wider. 

The subject that brings this topic back into conversation today is the violence occurring in Minneapolis. This violence is nothing new; political violence is the foundation of the U.S. We are a state formed out of violent revolution. The Founding Fathers were soldiers as much as they were philosophers and politicians. So to disavow all political violence and say it is never tolerable is to disavow the Founding Fathers and the existence of the U.S. as an independent state. Political violence also extends to police brutality and murders committed by ICE agents. 

Following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, liberals and conservatives were quick to say that political violence of any form is not tolerable. Would those same people criticize the Founding Fathers? Would those conservatives criticize the ICE agents arresting protesters, reporters, and other legal observers? This is certainly a use of force to achieve a political goal. Would those liberals criticize Luigi Mangione for (possibly) assassinating Brian Thompson? The answers to these questions are not definite. There are certainly conservatives and liberals who are consistent in their values against violence, but there are also many who are not.  

The truth is, most people are very inconsistent in their values and beliefs. Violence is never okay, unless it fits our agenda and we deem it necessary. In the past week or two, we have seen conservatives arguing against the Second Amendment. We have also seen mass public outrage coming from liberals who remained quiet when the same violence was being executed under a Democrat president. 

People who know me personally know that I am a self-described leftist. Leftists tend to believe they are more consistent in their ideologies than others and that this gives them some level of moral superiority — I disagree. I don’t think being consistent, or more aptly, rigid in your beliefs, makes you better. A great example of this is libertarians. I also don’t think leftists are entirely consistent. I would much more readily call Charlie Kirk evil than I would a member of a gang who has committed murder, theft, and sold drugs that inevitably ruined lives. This fact has been criticized before, and when written out, it doesn’t make much sense, but that’s just what I believe. My point is that everyone has inconsistencies, and that this isn’t necessarily wrong, but we must reflect and decide whether these beliefs stem from a place of bias or nuance.

The violence in Minnesota is beyond my ability to describe. I can’t capture the implications or depravity of it all in a Weather Vane article, but I would be remiss if I didn’t mention it in some capacity. If you feel powerless, I would encourage you to donate to a cause you care about. There are so many great organizations doing meaningful work. I am personally supporting the Immigrant Rapid Response Fund, which is a project of the Women’s Foundation of Minnesota. If you can’t financially support, that’s okay, use your voice, spread the word, maybe try to change a few minds.