A letter to our readers:
Your humble authors are separated by generation, geography, gender and political beliefs, but united in our love for Utah and the United States. There are many differences we point to that could erode the respect we have for one another, even breed hate. Instead, we choose to embrace these differences.
This makes our writing stronger and our business thrive. We use our varied backgrounds and ideologies to learn from one another and even strengthen our written arguments or perspectives. We make these differences work for us every day, and we believe the country can, and should, do the same.
In light of the anti-American assassination of political activist Charlie Kirk, we wanted to offer our perspectives.
Kirk was a provocateur whose words impacted millions, including your columnists.
Frank was born in the later years of the Eisenhower administration, when segregation was still practiced. The fight for equality in the 1960s was a common discussion in the Pignanelli household. So when Kirk disparaged Dr. Martin Luther King and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Frank was apoplectic. His animated response was, “I hope someone challenges that view so Kirk understands what was happening back then and why the law was meaningful to so many.” His reaction was to debate, not to strike.
Renae grew up in a conservative household where Rush Limbaugh or Fox News were continuously playing. Political debates around the dinner table were commonplace, where, for the sake of argument, her mother would assume the opposing view, just to help her daughters explore their own beliefs or expose holes in their adolescent ways of thinking. More recently, when people were criticized for not posting a black square or had the audacity of committing the thought crime of questioning government-sponsored “science,” she expressed curiosity for opposing opinions, not desires for violence.
With our different perspectives, we have common observations of the shooting investigation press conferences and the appalling responses from numerous individuals.
Although the family members of the alleged perpetrator were mentioned, they have not received the appropriate level of attention and appreciation they deserve. For a relative to contact authorities, knowing it could be a death sentence for their loved one, is an expression of loyalty to the nation, compassion to the victim’s family and a commitment to community. We sincerely express our gratitude for their courageous act and encourage political and law enforcement leaders to do the same.
Regardless of political differences, all Utahns should be proud of the role Gov. Spencer Cox is playing. President Donald Trump asked him to participate in all the national media conversations over the weekend. He expressed appropriate outrage tempered with compassion. Many previously mocked his “Disagree Better” campaign, an effort to increase civility and discourse. His wisdom and foresight at this moment in time are commendable.
Cox encouraged Americans not to characterize actions as either the “radical left” or “radical right.” He encouraged the disuse of political labels, advocating for the alternative ”radical action.” Individuals associated with both right and left-wing ideologies have committed or attempted political assassinations. No one faction owns this terrible blemish. It belongs to all.
The latest YouGov poll illustrates a disturbing trend. Thirty-four percent of very liberal or liberal young voters believe it is always or usually acceptable to be happy about the death of a public figure. This sentiment is the singular greatest tragedy of recent events and cannot be allowed to proliferate, especially in the hearts of young Americans.
The First Amendment guarantees citizens the freedom of speech. It does not mean freedom from the consequences of those words. Individuals calling for more violence should expect consummate and severe repercussions. Those celebrating this tragic killing or expressing anything but compassion for the victim’s family should be unabashedly challenged and reprimanded. We believe in zero tolerance for political violence or support of such barbaric actions. These macabre statements are deserving of harsh and severe consequences, even legal recourse where appropriate.
When Charlie debated college students on campus, he would often say that opposing views are not just welcomed; they’re invited. In the wake of this tragedy, we hope that one of the lessons learned is that disagreement over ideals should not propel someone to permanently silence the other side, but to openly and respectfully participate in an exchange of ideas.
Resorting to fisticuffs and bullets undermines a key tenet of our Constitution and what makes us uniquely American. Respectful debate is how understanding is built and consensus reached, not through censorship or murder. Constitutional ideological expressions, even of unpopular ones, should be questioned, examined and challenged through civil discourse, not violence. It is with this civility and curiosity that we approach opposing views, which makes our country unique in our freedoms.
The job of all citizens who care about the future of our country is to take up the cause. When someone endorses violence or cruelty toward anyone expressing an opinion, it should be firmly discouraged, while open, civil debate should be encouraged. Civility is more than just good table manners; it is how we defend our democracy.