Let's Champion Political Debate, Without Fear - The Source

A lot has been said this week about the shooting death of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk. Many have made him out to be something of a martyr. Others have said his inflammatory rhetoric made him an inevitable target for political violence. According to the binary political positions that some people live under, he was either a victim or a deserving target.

But there is a third position.

If anyone has managed to cut through some of the partisan noise this week to deliver a message that should be palatable to anyone who believes in the American experiment, it was perhaps Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, who posited that a free exchange of ideas and robust debate, not base violence, should be the way to work through disagreements.

“A free and democratic society, which is what America is supposed to be about, depends upon the basic premise that people can speak out, organize and take part in public life without fear — without worrying that they might be killed, injured or humiliated for expressing their political views,” Sanders said in a video statement posted Sept. 11. “In fact, that is the essence of what freedom is about and what democracy is about. You have a point of view, that’s great. I have a point of view that is different than yours, that’s great. Let’s argue it out. We make our case to the American people at the local, state and federal level, and we hold free elections in which the people decide what they want. That’s called freedom and democracy. And I want as many people as possible to participate in that process without fear.”

Sanders said he disagreed with much of what Kirk stood for. But Kirk’s willingness, during his many public appearances at college campuses, to debate those who disagreed with him was what Sanders is advocating for. Come to the podium. Speak your piece. Let the debate be the fodder to change minds. In Kirk’s case, that debate often involved humiliating less-prepared college girls, but the spirit of debate was there. His death, then, was a violent flashpoint. The message: speaking your mind might get you killed.

Sanders went on to say, “Political violence, in fact, is political cowardice. It means that you cannot convince people of the correctness of your ideas, and you have to impose them through force,” he said.

These days, much of the debate and support for the notion of free speech comes from journalists. Newspapers and other media outlets are supposed to be places where the free exchange of ideas is celebrated — through letters to the editor, guest opinions, profiles of community leaders and more. But in the modern media landscape, alongside that effort to share ideas, is a race to the bottom. Social media algorithms elevate the most inflammatory statements. The “good news” falls by the wayside. In the wake of this information landscape, society has a values problem: We can’t agree that common courtesy has a place in our community. That’s priming the pump for civil unrest outside the internet.

Given the scope of digital media and the algorithms that drive it, much of political debate is outside of our control. But what is in our control is what we choose to consume, and how we choose to react. We agree with Sanders when he advocates for a free exchange of ideas. And, society clearly needs to find a more effective way to push back against rhetoric that is aimed at harming others. This is the challenge for those on the left and the right who initially prided themselves on being “American” first. There is a reason that free speech is the “First” Amendment. It is time to be effective, convincing AND respectful as we try to move forward.