Josh Shapiro’s both-sides dodge

Charlie Kirk was assassinated in Utah. A man was murdered for his political speech. That kind of event should have been a line in the sand. It should have demanded moral clarity from leaders who claim to stand against hate. Instead, Governor Josh Shapiro used the moment to fall back on the safest, weakest line in American politics: both sides.

At the “Eradicate Hate” conference in Pittsburgh, Shapiro retold the terrifying story of the night his own residence was firebombed by a pro-Palestine radical, Cody Balmer, who admitted he came armed with a hammer to kill him. He described evacuating his family, thanking God for their survival, and praising the first responders who saved them. It was raw, it was honest, and it was the kind of moral clarity victims deserve.

But then he pivoted. And what followed was not clarity. It was confusion, wrapped in applause lines.

Here was Shapiro’s central claim: “It doesn’t matter if it’s coming from one side or from the other directed at one party or another, one person or another, it is all wrong and it makes us all less safe.”

It sounds noble. But it is not true. It does matter. Patterns matter. Motivation matters. And the pattern in this country is clear. Political violence is not evenly spread across the spectrum. It is tolerated and in some corners openly encouraged on the left.

One in Four Liberals Say Political Violence Is Justified

The data speaks for itself. Twenty-five percent of “very liberal” Americans say political violence can sometimes be justified. Among conservatives, that number drops to just three percent. The overwhelming majority of conservatives, 88 percent of the “very conservative,” reject political violence outright.

This is not “both sides.” The left is far more likely to excuse political violence. Shapiro’s dodge collapses under the weight of the numbers.

We should not be surprised by this. Governor Shapiro’s own words on social media prove the point. Just days after Charlie Kirk was assassinated, he was back on Twitter recycling the same “both sides” language.

He posted:

And again:

This is the governor of Pennsylvania, a man whose family was nearly burned alive by a pro-Palestine radical, still refusing to say plainly where the threat is coming from. He dilutes it into a generic “all sides” slogan, as if the assassination of a conservative leader and the firebombing of his own home were morally interchangeable with hypotheticals.

Shapiro warned: “Unfortunately, some from the dark corners of the internet, all the way to the Oval Office, want to cherry-pick which instances of political violence they want to condemn. Doing that only further divides us.”

That is projection. The only cherry-picking is his own. He lumps Butler, New York, Minnesota, and Utah into one blurry heap as if violence is equally distributed. It is not. From the attempts on Donald Trump in Butler and in Florida, to the pro-Palestine firebombing of the Governor’s Mansion, the murder of Representative Hortman in MN, to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, one pattern stands out. And it is not “both sides.”

Shapiro insisted: “Violence is never OK regardless of the motivation. Violence is never the answer, and we cannot allow violence to be used as a pretext for more violence.”

Of course violence is never OK. But motivation is everything. Motivation tells us whether violence is an isolated outburst or part of a political program. The motivation behind the attempt on Donald Trump’s life in Butler, behind Kirk’s assassination in Utah, and behind the firebombing of the Governor’s Mansion was not random. It was rooted in ideology. By washing over that truth, Shapiro shifts the conversation from cause to abstraction. That protects no one. And it changes nothing.

Shapiro also referenced the tragic killing of Melissa Hortman, the former Speaker of the Minnesota House, in his list of recent political violence. But what many do not know, is that she had provided the sole Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party vote in favor of HF1, a bill amending MinnesotaCare coverage eligibility. That legislation, which passed the House on June 12, enforced citizenship requirements for the state’s Medicaid program, stripping adult undocumented immigrants of publicly funded health care. The anger towards her at the time was palpable.

Here is the problem with the “both sides” argument. One side knows it is a lie, and the world can now see it clearly. After Charlie’s assassination there were zero riots, zero violence, zero retaliation. The other side uses the lie as a shield, protecting themselves from any reflection or accountability. Worse, it emboldens them to keep marching down a destructive path, knowing the narrative will always blur their actions into the safe fiction of “both sides.”

Instead of drawing a hard line, Shapiro pivoted to talking points. He spoke about digital literacy toolkits, free breakfasts, and government efficiency. The assassination of a conservative leader became a springboard for campaign messaging.

That is not the Pennsylvania way. That is the politician’s way.

Josh Shapiro knows what political violence looks like. He lived it when a progressive tried to burn his family alive. And yet when Charlie Kirk was assassinated, he did not speak with that same clarity. He took refuge in “both sides.”

The truth is this. One side of our politics has normalized political violence. One side justifies it, excuses it, or looks the other way. The polling proves it. The record proves it. Shapiro knows it. But he lacks the courage to say it.

Charlie Kirk’s death should have been a moment for truth. Instead, Shapiro blurred it. That is not moral leadership. That is evasion. And it leaves us all less safe.

Ada Nestor is the co-host of the The Conservative Voice radio show in Philadelphia and writes Reflections from the Edge on substack. You can reach her on X at @AdaNestorWC.