Over the past few weeks, numerous events both on and off campus have ignited intensified political discourse. With the recent assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, ongoing school shootings and National Guard deployments in prominent cities, our political conversation is more vibrant (and more flawed) than ever before.
As a political science major and a frequent user of X, I have become a witness to the figurative coliseum of politicized social media in real time. Over these months, I’ve observed a diverse array of “takes” from public figures and everyday citizens alike. Despite the varying sentiments across the nation, one pervasive flaw transcends political divides: the infamous “whataboutism.”
For the indifferent citizen, “whataboutism” often serves as a tool to maintain either total political apathy or entrenched partisanship, leaving little room for nuance or moral clarity. Whenever a tragedy occurs or an event seemingly benefits one side of the aisle, the opposing side swiftly responds with, “Well, what about what affected me and my party?”
While this tactic can sometimes be used to introduce nuance or fairness into complex debates about large, diverse political entities, it ultimately poses a threat to the integrity and utility of modern discourse. It often leads to selective empathy, allowing individuals to rationalize atrocities that, in a truly civilized nation, should evoke a strong sense of universal disgust. Our polarization has led us to prioritize party allegiance over innate moral discernment, transforming citizens into agents of the two-party system rather than agents of morality.
This phenomenon was evident across party lines with both the murder of Charlie Kirk and the attempted arson of Governor Josh Shapiro’s mansion this past summer. Whenever these incidents were discussed on X, the majority of responses sought to justify or diminish the crises by referencing opposing political crises, typically filling comment sections with sentiments such as, “I can’t be upset about (x) because (y) affected my side and wasn’t discussed equally.”
In our current climate, responses are often measured, compared and narrowly tailored to serve partisan interests. True national unity appears increasingly elusive, as condemnations of violence are dismissed as “pandering,” and moral outrage becomes a rare commodity that only is utilized when it serves the “correct” narrative.
This environment is further fueled by the rise of “shock value statements,” which lower the bar for what we find appalling and worthy of mass condemnation. Assassinations and acts of arson have become commonplace, sometimes even subject to comedic material. What once would have been considered outrageously evil now risks being dismissed as mere “dark humor.” I firmly believe that this desensitization weakens our moral fiber, diminishing our capacity to recognize evil and simply use tragedy for political gain.
I urge those engaged in political discourse to view tragic events as singularities, as unique moments that demand our moral clarity. The most courageous and radical act a citizen can undertake is to step back from the “looking glass” of partisan bias and judge events, individuals, and laws as they are, not as they are filtered through a flawed ideological lens. We must be able to confront acts of violence, threats against our republic and breaches of constitutionality with horror and moral outrage. Otherwise, we risk losing the instinct that has preserved our freedoms for more than two centuries.
In the words of President Abraham Lincoln, “The moral law is the basis of all freedom, and the foundation of all morality.”
