There have been numerous assassinations or attempted assassinations in American history. While Lincoln, Kennedy, Garfield, and McKinley died, Trump and Reagan were the only presidents who survived assassinations. Besides presidents, political activists such as Meir Kahane, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr., Robert Kennedy, Melissa Hortman, Christopher Stevens, Joseph Smith, and Harvey Milk have also been assassinated. All of these assassinations or attempted assassinations have been attributed to various reasons. Some have been attributed to purely psychological disorders, some to mafia paybacks, some to debt issues, and some remain completely unresolved.
Last week's Charlie Kirk assassination, in my opinion, is different. It is a consequence of both the fragmentation and the ideological divide of a divided America. Kirk was a prominent spokesperson for Trump and the MAGA movement. He was a prominent MAGA activist. What was said and experienced after the assassination had a greater impact than the assassination itself. Perhaps America's greatest strength over the years has been its ability to unite as one after such assassinations, at least in appearance.
But this time, the comments made after the assassination made the depth of the rift even clearer. Trump and MAGA supporters' accusations of left-wing liberals, that is, the left wing of the Democrats, naturally drew a reaction from that side. Intellectuals with a democratic leftist stance claimed that the assassination was perpetrated not by anti-MAGA figures, but by extremist MAGA figures. In fact, when a Harvard law professor voiced this view, a major social media war erupted. Ultimately, the division is so stark that it goes far beyond the assassination itself—it's less about who perpetrated it and more about the division within American society, almost resembling a civil war.
We haven't seen such a divide since the Civil War. Even the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't so stark. It was a clash between those who supported the status quo, who were in the minority but held power, and those demanding change and rights. This time, it's a divide that has divided the public, young people, everyone down the middle. Let's be clear: Trump isn't the cause of this. Trump has already ideologized, led, and voiced a political movement that began to emerge with the Tea Party movement under the name MAGA. But there's a lot more to the origin of this idea.
America's tax, healthcare, and employment policies, social rights, the expansion of individual rights outside traditional religious stances, and immigration policies like same-sex marriage and abortion, coupled with the resulting employment and security challenges created by immigrants entering the country, have deeply divided the parties. This deep rift wouldn't have healed anytime soon if Lincoln had been elected instead of Trump. Of course, Trump is pouring fuel on the rottenness and tension of the process with his style. America faces a test greater than the Civil War, World War II, the Great Depression, social movements, and the Cold War. Perhaps it's a struggle it's not quite accustomed to, a test where every political issue is divided into parties, politics shifts from the center to the extreme, and the differences within society become even more divided.
Getting out of this situation requires a leader. And by leader, I don't just mean the president. Leaders who can develop decisive policies that will bring society back to the forefront in civil society, Congress, the media, education, and the business world. If you ask me if I've seen any, frankly, none. Because it's always easier to garner votes, gain power, make money, gain popularity, and gain supporters through division and extremism. This is the reality of politics for every country. The challenge is to unite people in the face of absolute common ground, despite everything and everyone. Indeed, those who achieve this will go down in history not as leaders of their time, but as leaders of all time.
