Dear Neighbor,
I keep coming back to a troubling question: How did we get to a place where the Left is so comfortable publicly joking about, excusing, or even attempting political violence without fearing consequences?
Several examples have stuck with me in the wake of the latest assassination attempt on President Trump:
- A high school teacher posted online mocking past presidential assassins and lamenting that today’s would-be attackers aren’t more effective.
- A corporate employee recorded herself reacting to the attempt with “aww, they missed,” and shared it openly.
- And then there’s the alleged attacker himself, a teacher who wrote a detailed manifesto explaining his actions in moral, legal, and even theological terms.
What strikes me isn’t just what they said or did; it’s that they seemed to believe their views were acceptable, even widely shared. Take Cole Tomas Allen himself, the man who allegedly intended to take the President’s life. He signed his manifesto: “Cole ‘Friendly Federal Assassin’ Allen.” The friendliness is intentional. He believed he was one of the good guys.
Reading through the manifesto, I didn’t see chaos or irrationality. I saw structure. The author laid out rules of engagement, attempted to minimize harm to others, and addressed potential objections to his actions. He framed himself not as a villain, but as someone acting out of moral duty. That’s what makes this so unsettling. This wasn’t someone who simply “snapped.” This was someone who followed a line of reasoning to a very dark conclusion.
To me, that suggests a broader problem. It’s something bigger than any one individual. I see at least five forces contributing to this environment.
First is the steady dehumanization of political opponents. When people are consistently described in the most extreme terms – such as evil, dangerous, and beyond redemption – it becomes easier to justify extreme responses.
Second, social and cultural bubbles can reinforce these views. In some environments, expressing hostility toward certain political figures isn’t condemned – it’s rewarded. That changes the social cost of extreme rhetoric.
Third, there’s a kind of silence that develops when people assume everyone else agrees. Those who might object often stay quiet, which only reinforces the perception that these views are widely accepted.
Fourth, people can come to see themselves as acting on behalf of others – protecting victims, standing up for the vulnerable. That framing can make harmful actions feel justified, even necessary.
Finally, there’s the uncomfortable reality that ordinary people, given the right framework, can come to support or commit harmful acts while believing they are doing the right thing. That’s not new, but it’s still unsettling to see it play out.
What concerns me most is that these patterns don’t develop overnight. They build gradually through repeated messages, social reinforcement, and a lack of meaningful pushback. And no, this isn’t a both-sides issue.
If you label someone “evil,” you have to ask what that framing is intended to produce. On the Left, we see incendiary calls to take to the streets, burn down cities, or, in the words of our very own governor, be “meaner.” In a House committee just this week, a Democrat described her caucus’s tax policies as “class warfare.”
So again, why did we bother having Colin Hortman come in and talk about toning down the rhetoric if this is what we continue doing less than a week after an assassination attempt on our President?
Meanwhile, the Right’s prescription in response to perceived wrongdoing is more law and order and support for functional institutions. It is really no more complicated than that, because the vast majority understand the answer is not escalation or hostility. If anything, this moment calls for the opposite: a recommitment to basic standards of accountability and a recognition that the way we talk about one another matters.
Strong disagreements are part of any healthy political system, but when rhetoric crosses into dehumanization, it risks eroding the very boundaries that keep those disagreements from turning into something far worse.
If there’s one takeaway, it’s this: ideas have consequences. And when we normalize the belief that our opponents are not just wrong, but fundamentally immoral or just plain evil, we should not be surprised when some people begin to act on that belief in ways the rest of us find unthinkable. If you convince people that the other side is not just wrong but monstrous, you have not merely won a debate – you have weakened the moral barrier to violence.
The difference between the Left and the Right is not subtle. All you have to do is listen and ask yourself what they are asking of you. Is it a call to law and order and support for functioning institutions? Or is it giving structural permission – not explicit, not legal, but moral – to the next Cole Allen?
Sincerely,
Walter