Assassinations of Character and of Men: Here’s Why America Is So Fatally Divided

In the wake of yesterday’s horrible tragedy, the assassination of commentator Charlie Kirk, many are reacting with shock, others shockingly. As millions offer sympathy and prayers, others spew venom because they dislike the views Kirk held. And the murder and malevolent responses have inspired troubled observers to ask, once again: What’s wrong with 21st-century America?

Why are we so polarized?

One columnist, who shared mutual friends with Kirk and is “sickened” by his killing, believes she knows.

“Charlie had the courage to tell the truth,” she writes.

Laura Hollis had originally chosen to address the matter of Truth before Kirk’s death. Her motivation was a Carnegie Corporation of New York solicitation for proposals on why the U.S. is so polarized. She’s not optimistic, though, about the reception her analysis will receive. As she states at Creators:

I’m skeptical … about how much real impact this kind of work will have, because I don’t get the sense that journalists, academics or policymakers are interested in listening to anyone who doesn’t already agree with them.

And what is Hollis’ iconoclastic diagnosis? It doesn’t concern the fashionable classifications: liberal vs. conservative, Right vs. Left, Democrat vs. Republican. Rather, she suggests:

The division in America is, at its core, between those who want the truth — want to know it and want to be able to say it — and those who believe that with power comes the right to decide what the truth is, and to substitute a “narrative,” if that suits their purposes.

The Lonely Truth

Anyone who has read my work over the years knows that Hollis is singing my tune. The one common thread running through my more than a generation of commentary is the matter of Truth vs. the denial of it. Hollis is right, however: It’s hard getting traction talking about “Truth.” It doesn’t strike most as a sexy topic; it’s not as titillating as gossip. In reality, though, there’s nothing as fascinating as Truth; thus is it called “stranger than fiction.”

Hollis proceeds to list some high-profile violations of Truth (aka “lies”) that have recently been foisted on us. She mentions the numerous Covid-related lies, the “transgender” deception, the Biden-is-lucid gaslighting, the “opposing illegal migration is racism” charge, and that widespread retail theft is “reparations,” among other prevarications. What’s more, the columnist laments, when those leaning on such lies are called out, they don’t apologize. And not only are they unrepentant, but, Hollis writes, “They double down. They blame the victim. They gaslight us harder.” There’s a good reason for this, too: They aren’t just liars.

They are people of the Lie.

Yet to truly grasp their and our division’s nature, more must be said.

The Truth Will Set You Free — and Apart

So let me tell you my perspective. Know, too, that it is shared by millions of people nationwide; it’s also rejected by millions nationwide. (This reflects the division in question.)

I believe Truth is real, something transcending man, divinely authored; and hence universal, unchanging, and eternal. (Ergo, the capital “t.”) For this reason I love it, seek it, and, in a sense, worship it. Oh, this doesn’t mean I’m infallible in my discernment of it or, even, that I ever and always live up to the Truth I do know. Human imperfection precludes that. What it does mean is this: Truth, simply defined, is “God’s answers to all of life’s questions.” And I truly, sincerely, passionately want to know as many of those answers as I can.

Then there’s that other perspective. It holds that Truth — or “truth,” as those embracing the view would say — is merely a social construct. It’s just what we sometimes call the collection of “values” of a person, group, or the wider society. Moreover, far from transcendent, it is personal. This is why popular today is a certain sometimes pretentious appeal: “Speak your truth.” In this thinking, “truth” is synonymous with “values,” which itself is synonymous with “preference.”

Authoring Our Own Heaven or Hell

Now, it’s incorrect to say that which perspective you embrace changes things.

It changes everything.

For example, we all have emotion and emotion-based preferences. These are alluring, so much so that a famous song lyric goes, “It can’t be wrong when it feels so right.” Of course, though, it can and often is (countless people in destructive romantic relationships are Exhibit A). The question, however, is not just about how you resist these strong emotions’ errant prescriptions. It is also:

How can you know they’re errant in the first place?

And, how can we even say there is such a thing as “errancy” (morally speaking, that is)?

Obviously, we must have some standard, some yardstick, with which to judge the emotions. Yet if it can sit in judgment of them, it must be above them. And what fits this bill? Other people?

They’re just humans like we are, not gods.

Society?

It just comprises other flawed humans.

Reason?

It’s not an answer, but a method by which answers may be found. This presupposes, however, that there are answers to be found in the first place.

Now back to my perspective. I’m certain those answers exist; they are, again, God’s answers, or Truth. So when some emotion conflicts with Truth, I know it must be wrong and should be resisted. This can become easier (though not necessarily always “easy”) over time because you can become emotionally attached to Truth itself.

The Other Side

As to the other perspective, though, what happens when you deny Truth’s existence?

You then have nothing truly above your emotions, and inerrant, to say they’re wrong. This is how anyone who has thought this through can come to occultist Aleister Crowley’s dark conclusion. To wit:

“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

It makes sense, too (under the premises in question). For then all really is vanity; morality is mere illusion. So why not do what feels right — if you can get away with it?

Know this, however: Since God is the author of Truth, speaking of “your truth” is putting yourself in God’s place.

None of this should be taken to mean that all Americans fit perfectly into one of the two categories here. Most people aren’t philosophers and tend to occupy an emotion-influenced gray area. That is, they care about and defer to Truth to an extent. Or they dislike and have contempt for it — or fear it — to an extent. Moreover, denial of Truth (or rationalization) can become habitual, engaged in unthinkingly, instinctively.

This does explain, though, why debating leftists is generally fruitless. With them, refuting their arguments with Truth cuts no ice because Truth has been cut out of their life. You are citing a mediator whose authority and, in fact, very existence they deny.

This also explains why, as Hollis notes, the Left will so readily substitute a “narrative” for the Truth. For their narrative is their “truth,” and it’s all they have and all they want. Know as well that these self-crowned deities’ “truth” says there’s nothing wrong with them imposing their will on you — by any means necessary.