Lesser Good

Wright or Wrong

A Therapist’s View of the Political Divide

The assassination of Charlie Kirk occurred a short while ago. While I will usually internalize and analyse my view before giving it anyway, I did have to take a few days to mourn the gravity of the situation. Whatever side of the divide you fall on, this seems to be another significant shift in western political history. Unfortunately, there have been too many in recent years and maybe still not enough.

Many on the left have openly stated they would not be observing the vigil for Charlie Kirk, many who did so for George Floyd. We don’t have to support those we don’t align with, but I do hope we have empathy if and how they die. That includes avoiding slander post death, which is distasteful at best. Unless used as a political vehicle to invoke further division. Were we allowed to be unsupportive of George Floyd, while mourning the loss of life? Accusation against him may have been very different, if he had a similar platform to Charlie.

It’s curious that there has been no national movement for Iryna Zarutska, a Ukrainian woman of all nationalities. If there was ever a time to recycle those flags for a meaningful cause, it would be now. Where is the uproar for this racist attack? While I am hesitant to use the word “racist”, as it gets handed out like Halloween candy in recent years, this case appears clear. Iryna was the only white person in that carriage, and the assailant referenced her skin colour after the attack. Hard-pressed to arrive at a different conclusion.

Why did I have to Google her name? And where is the white square plastered across social media?

Crickets.

As a psychotherapist, I can say the traumatic impact on the Kirk family particularly the children will be devastating. There are too many devastating causes to align with, support or donate to. Our silence shouldn’t have to denote our apathy. Our social media presence shouldn’t confirm our compliance, but today it seems to.

We’ve been taught to finger-point rather than become part of the solution. Politicians take our votes and run, leveraging our money for their gain while our grocery bills increase. Yet we continue to vote for them.

Some have labelled Charlie a martyr for his faith; many have labelled him a fascist or white supremacist. While I may not agree on all his positions of faith and society, his influence on American youth appears more positive than negative. Many are embracing traditionalism, prioritising faith and family. More order, less chaos. Less short-term emotional reactivity, more long-term commitment.

To label Charlie Kirk a fascist or white supremacist is not only intellectually lazy, but also dishonest and divisive.

We have endured enough division in the name of political conquest, often from those who actively condemn colonization. Rather conquest. I find it curious how such events are used as political coercion, but more so that those who indulge refuse to admit it. So blinded by their conviction, it begins to resemble fundamentalism. Those unwilling to listen, those unwilling to change.

The entire premise of psychotherapy is that the subject must be ready to change. If someone cannot admit that they may be wrong, change cannot occur. An impasse follows. We must leave space for change, for empathy. But not the suicidal kind. The enabling kind. That privilege belongs to the imbalanced, which isn’t just white.

I agree with Charlie on hate, that there is no such thing as ‘hate speech’. The self-determining position of labelling something as hate leaves no margin for nuance. It leaves no space for rebuttal, reflection, or review. Your hate is subjective. Are we so arrogant to believe our hate is the right hate? It’s a slippery slope. History shows us repeatedly that we have been wrong, and it should not come as a surprise.

If we’re not on the edge of correction and truth, then are we not too dishonest to relent our position? Keyboard warriors have never been so educated, yet reluctant to change. If we spend too much of our time virtue signalling, is that the best use of our time? Are we socially consistent enough to even claim the right to signal virtue? If we are largely led by our emotions, it’s unlikely that we are consistent at all. Any virtue dissipates. We become mere finger-pointers.

Before this pseudo-inclusive movement or religion rose to prominence, an ancient text upheld our very society. It suggested:

“First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
— Matthew 7:5 (NKJV)

We should focus on changing ourselves.

I don’t know about you, but I could spend many lifetimes doing exactly that. Never completing the work. That’s the point. We should display enough humility to be wrong or at least admit the possibility. That’s what I don’t see from the immorally convicted.

A distant orange man is not to blame for your choices, your conduct. Nor is anyone else. You are. We choose how to respond to external stressors. There are plenty of those. Our agency remains.

If your first inclination is to be right, rather than be part of the solution, I think we’re missing the mark. Furthermore, if we lack skin in the game altogether, how much weight do our opinions have?

After all I’d rather be a wright than wrong, that is, a builder.

I think that’s what Charlie was encouraging us to do.

The greater good starts with us first, before others.