How Does the Attack on Charlie Kirk Influence Polarization in the Netherlands?

Source Photo: Google

In previous blogs I have already discussed polarization. There, I explained what polarization is and what the underlying causes may be.

On Wednesday, September 10, in the United States, the right-wing conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot during a political debate at Utah Valley University. Kirk was an influential commentator with many followers on social media and a supporter of current President Trump. Trump often praised him for convincing young people to vote Republican.

Although Kirk was not directly active in politics but mainly influential through social media, the attack on his life was quickly labeled a political act after his death. Almost immediately, voices from the right pointed to the left, and vice versa, even though the motives of the suspect were unclear. The finger-pointing from the right intensified when President Trump publicly blamed the radical left. The media also joined in with strong statements.

On the left side of the political spectrum, the rhetoric was less apocalyptic, but it was also not difficult to find social media posts expressing joy over Charlie Kirk’s death.

We must understand that an attack like this, and the commentary that follows in U.S. media and social media, can have a direct impact on political dynamics around the world. America often sets an example for how things unfold elsewhere. The fast finger-pointing from both the left and the right in the U.S. can serve as a precedent for politicians in other countries. It seems acceptable to accuse and make statements before all the facts are known or carefully assessed. In most cases, politicians hope to gain political advantage from this, rather than focusing on the rule of law, which is responsible for judging the attacker and his (possible) political motives.

Unfortunately, we also see this happening in the Netherlands. Recently, a politician tweeted about a suspect in a way that clearly sought political gain, rather than condemning the violent act and emphasizing that police and justice services were working extensively to track the suspect down. The Netherlands has a solid legal system that will eventually pass judgment. Political statements aimed at self-interest only add fuel to polarization.

With this short blog I want to stress that we must remain vigilant. The events and approaches in America, where polarization is a constant theme, should not be copied uncritically in other countries — including the Netherlands. Finger-pointing only deepens the divisions between people.

We must also not forget the potential attackers. If they see online that in the U.S. people even celebrate an attack, this could push them over the edge to commit one themselves. The promise of glorification and validation afterward can be the final trigger.

Finally, I want to emphasize that expressing feelings on social media is fine, but always consider the possible consequences of your words. Words have an effect — sometimes greater than we realize.

As I said, this is a short blog, but I hope it provides enough food for thought. The more we reflect together on polarization, the stronger we stand against its growth.

If you want to know more about the subject, please do not hesitate to contact me through the button below