It’s Not a “Both Sides” Problem
Editor's Note
Charlie Kirk’s assassination shatters the comforting fiction that America suffers from “both sides” violence. That refrain — echoed by politicians, journalists, and even some conservatives — is not analysis but evasion, a way of protecting the Left from owning the fury it has cultivated. When a man devoted to debate is gunned down and the opposition’s response is open celebration, it is no longer possible to pretend that Right and Left are equally guilty.
In this essay, Peachy Keenan shows that “both sides” talk is the last defense of a collapsing moral order. It allows the destructive Left to indulge its bloodlust while demanding conservatives confess to sins they did not commit. Political violence in America is overwhelmingly a project of the Left, and only by naming it as such can we hope to resist it.
After enduring years of violent threats from the Left and even getting tagged on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Hate Map,” Charlie Kirk was murdered in public last Wednesday. The culprit was a radicalized left-wing fanatic who scrawled “anti-fascist” far-left messages on the bullet casings. But not even 24 hours after Charlie’s assassination, social media and TV news were filled with liberals and politicians insisting the problem was “all of us.”
“We denounce the political violence on all sides,” said one. “All forms of political violence, on both sides, Right and Left, must stop,” insisted another. Even conservative Ainsley Earhardt joined in, telling President Trump on Fox & Friends that “we have radicals on the right as well.”
Let’s get real. In just the last year, the anti-capitalist Luigi Mangione brazenly shot a health insurance CEO dead on a New York sidewalk (and now functions as a folk hero to young liberals). Left-wing, transgender Trump-hater Robert Westman strafed the pews at a children’s Catholic mass, killing two and maiming dozens. Liberal judges perpetually release violent predators back into the public, where they resume their killing sprees. And finally, on September 10th, a hateful leftist assassinated young Charlie Kirk, MVP of the MAGA movement and a towering icon of American openness, courage, and free speech.
The Left’s politics have curdled into bloodlust.
Nevertheless, ghoulish Democrat politicians are hurrying to weigh in with their noble-sounding pleas for harmony, urging “both sides” to come together in the wake of Charlie’s murder.
Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the man who has made demonizing Donald Trump and his supporters his life’s work, had the gall to say this: “Violence which affects so many people of different political persuasions is an affliction. We need to come together, not point fingers and blame.” He’s begging the country not to blame his party, because he knows his party is guilty of extreme incitement to violence.
According to the Left, Charlie invited his own grisly murder. It’s no surprise — they said the same thing about Trump after they tried to kill him twice. Back then, the Cincinnati Enquirer wrote this about the now-president: “There is no place for political violence, but Donald Trump brought it on himself.”
And they’re at it again. Since Charlie’s murder, the internet has been ablaze with grotesque displays of celebration. On TikTok, Instagram, and X, countless users mocked Kirk’s death with captions like “CHARLIE KIRK DEAD,” likened him to Hitler, and joked about him waking up in hell alongside other figures whose deaths they cheered — like GOP wrestler Hulk Hogan’s. Several school teachers in Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, and Texas openly posted their approval on social media. The online poison flows unabated, even as I write.
In today’s climate, in fact, failing to cheer might mark you as the outlier, even raising suspicion that you secretly sympathize with the Right. But how is it that liberals feel empowered to publicly proclaim these atrocities?
Here’s how: They’re used to a lack of retribution. For a long time, they’ve known they wouldn’t be fired or reprimanded or discredited (though, thankfully, the tides are shifting on this front).
It continues to be true that they won’t be targeted for physical violence by the Right. They’re safe from any real harm. And they’re fully aware of what they can’t bring themselves to say: Conservatives won’t condone violence in the way the Left systematically — and routinely — will. So, instead, they must convince themselves the Right is as culpable as they are.
Hakeem Jeffries, right on cue and laughably, blamed Trump’s rhetoric for Charlie’s death: “This moment requires leadership that brings people together as opposed to trying to further divide us.”
Even Al Gore emerged from his hideout to proclaim: “I urge all Americans to join in a commitment to help steer our democracy away from the hatred and hyper-partisan divisions that have become all too common, and steer instead toward open, good faith debate among those with whom we disagree.”
“We?” What do you mean: “we?”
Even journalist Mark Halperin’s typical even-handed approach has collapsed into quavering proclamations that “both sides” are equally guilty of violent assault. Halperin knows the stakes here, and he’s clearly getting desperate in his deflection. On his podcast, he stooped to citing the attack on Paul Pelosi as an example of “right-wing violence.”
That’s patently absurd. If you have to reach for “Paul Pelosi’s attacker was a right-wing extremist,” you’ve lost the plot. Pelosi’s attacker was a homeless Canadian gay male escort with a serious drug problem. In fact, he may have known Paul before, and it’s entirely possible they were having some sort of private dispute. That junkie was not a “right-wing extremist.” That was not “right-wing violence.” Try again.
And try they will. The online Left is now bringing up January 6th. It’s an absurd argument, of course. Not a single Trump supporter in that January crowd was armed. Not a single Trump supporter attacked a liberal or a Congressperson. The only person executed that day was an unarmed woman — by a Democrat.
For liberal politicians and their media allies, even the slightest doubt about the “both sides” narrative would threaten to collapse the Left’s rotten edifice of morality. To admit the truth would be to concede that their party is little more than a skin suit, concealing the seething bloodlust of ordinary liberals who openly crave the deaths of their political opponents.
The reality, for those who have forgotten what reality is: If a deranged right-winger had, God forbid, executed Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, the Right would be horrified. Expressions of glee, elation, joy would be few and far between. Those who did celebrate would be quickly shunned. Their careers would be ruined, and rightly so.
Right now, President Trump is being denigrated online for saying just that. “I’ll tell you something that’s going to get me in trouble, but I couldn’t care less,” the president responded, when asked by Fox News if the country should unite in the wake of Charlie’s death. “The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don’t want to see crime. They don’t want to see crime.”
He’s telling the truth. The Right is not seeking to kill, maim, harm.
To all the Democrats blathering about the need for both sides to “come together,” it’s time to get a clue. Own up to your side’s savage proclivities. Acknowledge that the “political violence” in America is your problem. Take stock of your own hateful rhetoric, your own cable networks, your own newspapers, and your academic cretins who will push extremist narratives — the very narratives that are getting our people killed.
If you don’t take this opportunity for that kind of serious self-reflection, don’t be surprised if no one wants to “come together” with you to heal. Why on earth should we?
Until that unlikely event happens, I will stay safely on “my side”: the side that believes in life, liberty, and the right to speak freely without getting targeted for violence and death.
Rest in peace, Charlie. We didn’t deserve you.