When elected officials cheer political violence, we all lose

It’s no secret that I disliked Kamala Harris as a presidential candidate. Last fall, I wrote a four-part series, “The Case Against Kamala,” explaining why she was wrong for the job based on her past performance and campaign platform. 

Had she won the election, I certainly would have been disappointed and deeply concerned, but I would never hope or wish that she would meet a tragic ending. And if something horrific did happen, I would never celebrate it personally or online.

I have been thinking about this a great deal since the gruesome assassination of Charlie Kirk last week. He was often described by the mainstream media as a right-wing provocateur, a polarizing and controversial figure.

Kirk’s organization, Turning Points USA, visited West Chester University right before the election and hosted a “Prove Me Wrong” event. As a long-time resident of the increasingly progressive town, I was surprised at the number of students and local residents who showed up to participate in the event to challenge participant’s thinking.

I did not know a lot about him or his organization prior to attending the event, but I walked away impressed with the organization and the rational debate skills, despite not agreeing with him on every topic raised. Both the speakers and students and enjoyed the challenge of assumptions.

In recent years, we have witnessed an onslaught of First Amendment attacks on college campuses across the country, and it was refreshing to see our constitutional rights embodied at West Chester University, my alma mater. At no point in time did the crowd grow restless or violent. I spoke with many students afterwards who were excited about the opportunity to participate in the Turning Points USA event.

Based on this experience, I find it unfathomable that the brutal murder of this 31-year old father and husband could be celebrated by anyone, especially Americans who value our constitutional rights. Kirk’s events were the epitome of the First Amendment. 

Yet, sadly, there are many posts on social media doing just that — celebrating this tragedy — including some local, current and former elected officials. Their posts either celebrated his death or insinuated that it was his own fault.

I fully recognize that these statements are not illegal and are protected under the First Amendment; however, just because something is legal does not mean it is ethical or moral or even judicious — especially for politicians who are elected to represent all of their constituents.

Elgin Bailey is an elected school director in the Coatesville Area School District, located in Chester County. Following Kirk’s murder, he posted this statement on Facebook.

According to the Pennsylvania Department of Education, Coatesville Area School District has 2061 white students — 38.6 percent of the student population. How is Elgin in his capacity of school director capable of representing those families — or any other families for that matter — on the board?

In Montgomery County, current Limerick Township supervisor, Patrick Morroney also took to social media, sharing a post by Occupy Democrats, claiming Kirk is “neither a martyr nor a hero,” but rather “a cause” of violence.

Also in Montgomery County, Ambler Tax Collector, Jennifer Wexley Stomsky posted a diatribe on social media following Kirk’s death.

She subsequently responded to comments on the post with a statement, “let’s make some more martyrs.”

Faced with mounting backlash for her posts, Stomsky issued an apology for her remarks and resigned her position as Vice Chair for the Area 14 Democratic Party; however, she did not resign from her position as Tax Collector.

Back in Chester County, former Mayor of West Chester and former State Representative Dianne Herrin posted on social media a similar message as Township Supervisor Morroney, accusing Kirk of “inciting violence.”

Herrin’s post was shared eighteen times and garnered 135 comments ranging from strong agreement to admonishment.

These posts are very concerning to me on a number of different levels.

During times of unrest and violence, we look to our political leaders, regardless of their affiliation, to help us make sense of what is happening. When Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Kennedy brothers were assassinated, elected officials — regardless of political affiliation — and the media mourned these incredible losses for our country. Those actions instilled hope and faith around the country.

Today, divisive messages like this continue to tear us apart.

Kamala Harris condemned the act and offered condolences for Kirk’s family in a post on X.

Joe Biden offered similar comments.

Despite my feelings about Harris and Biden as the former Vice President and President, I am grateful for their appropriate statements which stand in stark contrast to some of the posts from local politicians.

The best way to honor Charlie Kirk and preserve his legacy is to promote the importance of respectfully challenging assumptions and ideas. All of us get caught up in an emotional moment and say things or worse yet, post things that add no value to the conversation.

While comments like this are not illegal and are clearly protected under the First Amendment, are they really necessary, particularly in times of political upheaval?

I fully support the First Amendment and every American’s right to free speech — that is what makes our country great and also unique. And yet, just because we have the right to free speech doesn’t mean we need to use it every minute of every day in every situation.

Beth Ann Rosica resides in West Chester, has a Ph.D. in Education, and has dedicated her career to advocating on behalf of at-risk children and families. She covers education issues for Broad + Liberty. Contact her at barosica@broadandliberty.com.

Editor’s note: This article was updated to correct details about the 2024 West Chester event.