In the last few days following the horrific shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, politicians have predictably called for us to “come together” and enlisted the tired talking point that good leaders can “bring people together” following tragedies.
However pleasant such rhetoric may sound, the inconvenient truth remains that “bringing people together” is nothing more than fluff that is impossible to achieve in practice. This might seem cynical, but it is an unfortunate reality that predates the rise of President Trump.
The core of the issue is that both sides of the political aisle increasingly believe that the other side is morally deficient and, in some cases, downright evil. This is further exacerbated by many media outlets that feature analysts paid huge sums of money to offer inflammatory, click-grabbing perspectives. Nowhere is this more obvious than the gun control debate.
Public opinion is split in two camps: those who support gun control and those who do not. And the accompanying rhetoric is depressingly familiar. If you oppose gun control, then the other side says you don’t care about dead children. If you support gun control, then the other side says that you don’t believe people have a right to defend themselves.
And just think about how quickly the political inclinations of both shooters were brought into the spotlight. Each side desperately hoped that the murderer was on the other side of the political aisle, so they could paint their political opponents as evil by lumping them in an evil mass shooter. The basic, common conclusion is that the other side supports evil if they do not agree with your position.
A prime example of this rhetoric is the recent back and forth on Twitter between former NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch and a long list of verified, left-leaning commentators. The general insinuation was that because Loesch had worked for the NRA and opposes gun control, she is a “murderer” who has “blood on her hands.”
The absurdity of this claim aside, the use of such rhetoric from accounts with hundreds of thousands of followers serves primarily to stoke up anger and resentment, not to accomplish anything meaningful.
While Loesch is a prominent example of the Left attacking someone on the Right, the Right side of the political spectrum is in no way immune from this sad phenomenon. The rampant use of terms such as “libtard” and “demonrat” encourage the notion that those who support left-wing causes are evil.
What constitutes good and evil is something that has been debated and discussed for the entirety of human existence. And calling someone evil because they disagree with you is tantamount to declaring that they should be ostracized from society. And as awful as this is to point out, it has increasingly become the standard position in political rhetoric.
Gone are the days when Republicans hugged Democrats on the steps of the U.S. Capitol after 9/11. Instead we have one side who declares that every one who opposes them is an evil communist who hates God and freedom, and another side that says anyone who opposes them is a Nazi, fascist, racist who wants to see children locked in cages or murdered in schools.
There is no “bringing people together” in the aftermath of these horrible tragedies. There is no united front in the face of a universally accepted evil. There is only division and hatred until the old assumption that people are generally good, regardless of political disposition, reigns supreme once again.
Jeremiah Poff is a graduate of Franciscan University of Steubenville and a staff reporter for The College Fix.
