We Must Also Be Real: We Accept Violence
Today is Tomorrow is Next Year, We Cannot Rely on Politicians to Change Us
September 11, 2025.
Our Nature
Humans accept that part of our nature, our genetics, is violence. One could argue it is part of our primordial heritage. This conclusion is reinforced by witnessing world events, as well as those unfolding right here in Minneapolis.
While we debate whether conservatives or liberals are responsible for Charlie Kirk’s murder, or Melissa Hortman’s, or the children at Annunciation, or the sidenote of yesterday’s shooting at Evergreen High School in Colorado, the facts indicate that we, as humans, have violent tendencies.
There are currently more than 110 ongoing armed conflicts globally. Nepal is on fire, Israel and Hamas continue to wage war on one another, Russia is gaining ground in Ukraine, and another war is underway in Sudan. Yes, these are “political” battles, but they are humans trying to solve problems through violence. The U.S. House recently passed an $892.6 billion budget for the newly renamed Department of War.
It is fitting to be writing this newsletter on the 24th anniversary of 9/11. It is a day I will never forget. I was at the World Trade Center 45 minutes before the first plane hit. I watched it burn from the roof of my office in Brooklyn and then spent months afterward walking past the smoldering wreck on my way home each day. The smell of burning metal suffused the streets of lower Manhattan. This event cast a spell over the city and the country for a brief period, during which strangers treated each other with deference. It was a tragedy in which we had all participated. It was a time when we realized we were all vulnerable.
Our culture is permeated by songs, movies, speech, news, and interactions that glorify and reward violent images and rhetoric. Violent sports are often viewed as an acceptable outlet for what appears to be a need for conflict.
There are scant resources devoted to promoting nonviolent conflict resolution. If politicians and their supporters—meaning us—wanted to change the narrative, we could devote part of that $892 billion to mental health care, social and emotional learning in schools, domestic abuse shelters, and programs that cultivate nonviolence and self-reflection. Politicians will act on these priorities only when voters demand it. So far, we have chosen other priorities. We have accepted the status quo.
While there is often debate about whether violent images and rhetoric cause violence, I tend to believe they reflect human nature and our culture. They may normalize destructive behaviors, but they are ultimately showing us who we are. The real failure comes when violence leaves its “acceptable” realms and enters the spaces we want to consider sacrosanct: our schools, houses of worship, our streets, and the political sphere.
Our son participates in a baseball chat, yet several members still use it to spread political views. The fact is that politics is everywhere, and so is violence. That is why calls to end “political violence” ring hollow without a broader discussion of how we confront violence in our own hearts and minds. It is a mixed message to fund a vast military complex, permit assault rifles, and then call for an end to violence. At the same time, we ignore the need for nonviolent conflict resolution in daily life. Where does kindness fit into our rush for domination and victory?
Debate Rhetoric
A recent example of how we have come to accept violent rhetoric occurred at the mayoral forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters. It was held at the Central Library and drew approximately 100 people. Fourteen of the fifteen candidates for mayor were on stage. Most of them have no realistic chance of winning. One, Troy Peterson, appeared to view the $500 fee to run for mayor as a license to espouse violent rhetoric. Sadly, the League of Women Voters, the audience, and the other thirteen candidates allowed him to call for all those who participated in the George Floyd uprising to be “hung for sedition” without comment. He even uses this phrase on his X profile, a red flag that could have been used to bar him from the event.
(Video of Troy Peterson at the LWV forum provided by Taylor Dahlin.)
It may have been collective shock that kept us from speaking. But somehow, we allowed this open call for murder to go unchallenged. It might also be that we have grown accustomed to such heated pronouncements as part of political discussion. The path from this sort of rhetoric to a mentally unwell person taking up arms is short.
The Protest
Yesterday, along Nicollet Avenue, about 50 people gathered in protest, holding ribbons, flowers, and signs calling for a ban on assault weapons. They were parents, friends, and neighbors of those impacted by the shooting at Annunciation. I support them. However, to quote Charlie Kirk, “Now, we must also be real.” The politicians in Minnesota will preen and posture about gun violence, but little will change. Too many people believe gun ownership is a fundamental right. They agree with Kirk that just as we accept 50,000 vehicle deaths each year without banning cars, we must also accept a certain number of gun deaths:
I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth having, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.
Social media allows people like Troy Peterson to project violent rhetoric to a larger audience than they otherwise could. In a more deadly way, guns allow people to kill from great distances and with tremendous speed. Their prevalence gives even the most confused and unwell among us a power they would not have if those weapons were less accessible.
Special Session
Even if the Minnesota legislature found the courage to ban assault weapons tomorrow, many are already here. So are handguns. And firearms remain easily available, a short drive away in Wisconsin, Iowa, and North Dakota.
It is a mistake to think politicians will solve this problem for us. What is needed is a cultural shift—one in which we choose nonviolence in our daily lives. The work begins internally. Each of us must examine our violent tendencies with honesty and openness. Our society is a reflection of who we are as individuals.
Empowerment is not only about voting, though that is one expression of it. Empowerment is also recognizing that we are each responsible for the stories we tell ourselves and those around us. Those stories can be filled with compassion and respect, or they can be rage-filled rants. It is a decision each of us must make.