Political violence is, unfortunately, increasing. Each incident raises questions for me that go way beyond the individual at the center of the story. These moments are not just about one politician, commentator, or activist; they’re about the climate we’re all living in and the direction we’re sadly heading.

Reuters has reported about 150 politically motivated attacks in the first half of 2025, which is almost double the number from the same period last year

When any public figure takes the stage, in today's environment, they become lightning rods for anger and division. Supporters elevate them as heroes; critics treat them as villains. In this polarized space, the actual person, no matter what their beliefs are, gets lost. What remains is attacked, defended, or destroyed.

The danger of this trend we are on is that it strips away our humanity. Once someone is seen only as an idea or an enemy, hostility feels justified. We’ve seen this play out not only in political rhetoric, but in IRL confrontations that turn violent.

So why do we vilify? Is it easier to project our anger onto a single person than to wrestle with the issues we disagree with? Does turning a political opponent into a caricature make us feel more certain about our own side?

We should be able to challenge ideas. We should be able to disagree passionately without believing that someone else’s voice is a threat to ours.

Political violence isn’t just an attack on one person; it’s an attack on the possibility of dialogue itself. When we allow vilification to take root, we make it harder to find solutions, harder to listen, and harder to move forward together.

The next time another headline emerges, maybe the most important question isn’t “Which side was he on?” but rather: “Why do we keep choosing vilification over conversation?”