When Murder Becomes a Meme
Nothing illustrates America’s moral decline more clearly than the public reaction to acts of political violence.
Hours after UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was gunned down on a Midtown Manhattan sidewalk, something deeply unsettling began unfolding online. Instead of universal condemnation for the murder of a husband and father, social media feeds filled with memes, fan art, fundraising efforts, and posts portraying the alleged killer, Luigi Mangione, as a folk hero. For many Americans, the reaction was almost as disturbing as the crime itself. The unthinkable was happening — ideological violence was not only publicly justified by users on social media; it was celebrated as entertainment.
Regardless of one’s views on the American health care system, violence is never activism, murder is never justice, and glorifying homicide as a form of political expression represents a profound erosion of our moral compass.
Nine months later, after conservative activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated, history repeated itself. While leaders from across the political spectrum condemned the killing, parts of the internet exploded with mockery, zealous celebration, and viral posts cheering the death of someone they viewed not simply as a political opponent, but as a mortal enemy that deserved to die. Once again, algorithms rewarded the loudest and most inflammatory reactions, amplifying voices that treated tragedy as content and murder as political theater. America cannot preserve a democratic republic if citizens begin applauding assassination because they disliked the victim’s politics.
By any honest measure, America is losing something far more valuable than elections. We are losing our ability to disagree without unmitigated hatred.
Politics has always been contentious. Americans have fiercely debated war, taxes, civil rights, immigration, social issues, and the role of government since the nation’s founding. However, previous generations generally understood one fundamental truth — your political opponent was not your enemy.
Today, that line in the sand is disappearing. Spewing profanity laced tirades fueled with hatred towards the opposite party is a standard trope of modern political discourse.
The greatest threat to our political culture is no longer confined to Washington, D.C. Increasingly, it comes from millions of smartphones, livestreams, podcasts, and social media algorithms that reward moral indignation and hateful rhetoric over reason and rational discussion. The result is a political culture where every issue becomes existential and every disagreement becomes personal.
America is allowing internet personalities to shape the political worldview of an entire generation. And that should alarm Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike.
The Age of the Political Influencer
For much of American history, political influence flowed through civic institutions — churches, newspapers, labor unions, community organizations, and elected officials. Today, influence is increasingly concentrated in online personalities whose livelihoods depend on engagement, clicks, and controversy.
In an age where livestreamers and social media influencers command audiences that rival cable news networks, the nation’s most influential political figures are increasingly those who have never held public office.
On the right, Nick Fuentes and his Groyper white nationalist movement is especially popular among young, Gen Z men. His content has millions of views across several media platforms, with 1.3 million followers on X alone. Fuentes has built a following by rejecting traditional conservatism in favor of politics rooted in provocation and grievance identity. The movement has challenged mainstream Republican leaders and promoted rhetoric that many conservatives themselves have condemned as antisemitic, misogynistic, divisive, and fundamentally inconsistent with the principles of constitutional conservatism.
On the left, Hasan Piker has become one of the most influential and polarizing political streamers in America. With millions of followers across several media platforms, including 1.7 millions followers on X alone. He is popular among younger audiences, particularly Gen Z and Millennials. Piker has demonstrated how online personalities can shape political attitudes outside the traditional media ecosystem, particularly inside the rising DSA movement. His provocative style, antisemitic and incendiary rhetoric has contributed to a violent political environment where opponents are viewed less as fellow citizens and more as moral enemies, often justifying hate speech and political violence.
These figures represent opposite ends of the political spectrum, yet they thrive on the same business model. Anger attracts followers, followers generate revenue, and the more outrageous the take, the more profitable the platform.
Wisconsin Is Not Immune
Wisconsin has increasingly become a microcosm of America’s ideological battles. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) have expanded their influence in progressive politics, a troubling shift inside the Democratic party.
The rise of DSA political candidates has prompted a national debate about where the Democratic Party is headed and who now shapes its agenda. It is in that context that Wisconsin Assembly Representative and gubernatorial candidate Francesca Hong’s appearance on Hasan Piker’s livestream drew significant attention.
After raising tens of thousands of dollars for her campaign through a livestream fundraiser, Piker then traveled to Milwaukee on Sunday, August 2, to campaign alongside Hong. Over the years, he has faced widespread criticism for inflammatory remarks, including his infamous statement that “America deserved 9/11,” and stating he did not have an issue with Hezbollah “as a form of militancy,” as well as other controversial comments about international conflicts and U.S. foreign policy.
Hong has said that appearing on Piker’s platform was intended to reach younger and politically disengaged voters and does not constitute an endorsement of everything he has ever said. Voters, especially Democrats, should ask themselves whether candidates who lend credibility to polarizing internet personalities reflects sound judgment. Extremism should never receive a free pass simply because it comes from one’s own political tribe.
Warnings From Inside the Democratic Coalition
Some of the most pointed criticism of today’s political climate has not come from conservatives alone. It has also come from Democrats and center-left voices.
Comedian Bill Maher has repeatedly warned that parts of the progressive movement have become detached from everyday Americans, intolerant of disagreement and promoting hate speech, indicating “his vote is in play.”
Democrat Political Consultant, James Carville, has argued that Democratic messaging is increasingly shaped by activists whose radical agendas fail to resonate with working-class voters, suggesting the rapid escalation of the DSA movement is alienating the broader electorate.
Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) has openly criticized segments of his own party and has repudiated policies when he believes they have embraced bigotry, hate speech, antisemitism, and violent positions. Fetterman is often a target of the far-left faction of his own party, even receiving death threats and violent messages wishing his demise.
Entrepreneur and Professor Scott Galloway (Democrat), has been outspoken on the topic of the pervasive failings of young men in America, addressing the modern masculinity crisis, and writing the book “Notes on Being a Man.” He distinguishes healthy masculinity from cruelty, abuse, violent hatred and misogyny, which he calls “anti-masculine.” He criticizes the demonization of men that has plagued our modern culture, indicating it was the catalyst for young men, seeking guidance and support, turning to influencers like Piker and Fuentes, to fill that void. (Other toxic influencers include Andrew Tate and Vaush, among others).
Galloway has similarly warned that America’s political and cultural incentives increasingly reward outrage, division, and performative conflict rather than serious problem-solving. Recent controversies surrounding public criticism directed at him illustrate how quickly political disagreement can escalate into intense personal attacks, even from one’s own political party. Galloway was recently doxed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s pied-à-terre tax list — Galloway calling it “a wanted poster”– a dangerous move after a healthcare CEO was executed in the streets of NYC.
Conservatives have not been silent in confronting extremism within their own ranks. After Nick Fuentes attended a dinner with then-former President Donald Trump in 2022, prominent Republicans publicly condemned the association. Former Vice President Mike Pence stated there was “no room in this party for apologists for antisemitism or white nationalism.” Senator Marco Rubio described Fuentes as an “anti-Semite” and “one of these Holocaust-denying people.” Governor Ron DeSantis likewise called Fuentes a “jackass” and said he had “no place” in the Republican movement. Those statements demonstrate political leaders who strengthen their credibility when they are willing to draw clear moral lines against extremists who claim to speak for their side.
Whether one agrees or not with each of these individuals’ political proclivities, their willingness to challenge their own side reflects an important principle — political parties remain healthiest when they tolerate internal debate rather than ideological conformity to the extreme factions of the party.
America Needs Leaders, Not Influencers
The United States has survived a civil war, world wars, economic collapse, and profound social upheaval because Americans ultimately believed that their fellow citizens, even those with whom they fiercely disagreed, remained fellow citizens.
That civic bond is fraying. Democrats must reject voices that excuse or romanticize political violence, hailing murderers and communist leaders as heroes while spewing violent rhetoric towards Republicans and moderate Democrats alike. Conversely, Republicans must reject voices that traffic in antisemitism, misogyny, and “Groyperism.”
Public officials should think carefully before lending credibility to internet celebrities whose brands depend on division, and all of us should resist the temptation to mistake virality for wisdom.
If our loudest influencers continue to shape our politics more than our best leaders, we should not be surprised when our politics begins to resemble the internet itself — angry, tribal, performative, violent, and increasingly incapable of seeing humanity in those on the other side of the screen. This is the greatest danger facing America today.
Our democracy depends on rediscovering the simple but essential truth that political opponents are not enemies to be destroyed, but fellow Americans with whom we share the responsibility of preserving this republic.
