After Charlie Kirk’s assassination: Can America reclaim civil discourse?

By Maddox Skrocke | Guest Commentary, Rocky Mountain Voice

America is fraying after the events of Sept. 10, 2025, when Charlie Kirk was assassinated. Political polarization has become so intense that it threatens the very democratic fabric that binds us together. 

Pew Research shows that over the past decade, Americans have drifted into sharply defined ideological camps with few moderates remaining to mediate when we differ. 

Without those few bridge-builders, we increasingly view our neighbors as enemies rather than fellow citizens. To heal this rift, we must continue the work of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk: fostering conversations that reject violence and malice and instead are rooted in our principles. 

The need for such dialogue is not abstract. Recent events reveal how dangerous people become when radicalized. Across social media, opponents cherry-pick and distort clips of Charlie Kirk, casting them in the harshest possible light. 

This gap between fact and perception is not simply a lack of information; it is a symptom of a society primed to believe the worst about its political opponents and to embrace misinformation. 

When rumor eclipses reality, resentment grows, and citizens willfully justify violence and apathy toward one another. Moreover, the need to push an agenda with emotionally charged tragedies by any means necessary has been an issue further polarizing Americans. 

In 2020, the killing of George Floyd provoked both peaceful protests and destructive riots. Leaders and media outlets highlighted Floyd’s case while comparatively downplaying the contemporaneous killing of Ahmaud Arbery, a man going for a jog who was also targeted with racial bias, selectively framing events to rally their base. 

Political oppression has ceased to be hypothetical. From attacks on state legislators to four repeated assassination attempts on President Donald Trump, the United States has experienced a surge of ideologically driven attacks. 

These tragedies are often fueled by grievance and rage, emotions amplified by propaganda from both extremes. Each violent act intensifies collective fear and creates fertile ground for further radicalization. 

Both sides bear responsibility. 

On the left, leaders often normalize emotionally charged politics that reward outrage over reason. 

On the right, some voices exploit tragedies to depict all liberals as enemies of faith and freedom. 

Both paths create division and extremism, something Charlie Kirk’s dialogue seeks to resist. 

As philosopher Immanuel Kant warned, morality must be grounded in duty and principle, not in the volatility of emotion. Principle based ethics likewise demand weighing the consequences of our actions for the broader good, and not to simply act upon impulsive emotional reactions. 

When politicians and pundits stoke anger for attention or votes, they betray principle and ethical traditions. 

Charlie Kirk’s work stands out because he consistently advocated robust debate without resorting to calls for violence. 

Whether one agrees or disagrees with his conservative positions, his focus on free speech and campus dialogue models a path forward. To “continue Charlie Kirk’s work” means more than supporting his ideology; it means defending the principle that civil discourse advances, without the use of intimidation or bloodshed. 

Pew’s 2025 survey underscores how urgent this is: Americans’ trust in one another has plummeted, with majorities doubting their neighbors’ basic goodwill. 

Without trust, democracy cannot endure. We cannot legislate trust back into existence; we must rebuild it through deliberate, person-to-person effort. This requires courage to step outside our ideological comfort zones and listen to those who disagree with us. 

What does action look like?  

Seek information beyond your bubble: Read across the spectrum and verify sensational claims before sharing. Verify your stories through case studies and research papers. 

Practice principle-based dialogue: Anchor debate in shared values like honesty and fairness and letting principles—even if yours are different than their own—guide the conversation. When you go into a conversation, do not only speak your own truth; back up your thinking, and do not let your emotions uproar. 

Engage locally: Attend town hall, volunteer, or join community forums; shared service reminds us neighbors are partners, not enemies. This does not mean to violently protest. 

Reject violence and malice: Call out harassment and dehumanization wherever it appears. 

America’s current path—marked by mistrust, misinformation, and the normalization of political hatred—has become unsustainable. 

But collapse is not inevitable. By embracing principle-based dialogue and continuing Charlie Kirk’s example of conversation without violence or malice, we can reclaim the civic space where disagreement is not war but democracy in action. 

The work begins not in Washington but in our own neighborhoods, classrooms, and dinner tables. Let us meet the challenge with courage and civility before the cage we have built for ourselves closes completely. 

Maddox Skrocke is a student at Metropolitan State University of Denver and serves as a Business Law teaching assistant. His interest in the direction of the country deepened over the past four years and sharpened through his study and instruction of business law. He hosts the Context Included Podcast on YouTube, where he explores current issues shaping America’s cultural and divisive landscape.

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.