When you write thrillers, many including geopolitical intrigue and conflict between people and groups who both believe they are right, you develop a deep sensitivity to the level of disagreement in the world today. On the grand level of nation to nation, these conflicting beliefs can and do explode into armed conflict. Governments are not very good at debating their core principles or compromising their goals. There is an old saying that applies here: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
In my writing, I strive to introduce readers to both sides in a conflict. In today's world, that often means introducing three or four or more parties to a conflict. Modern media, especially social media, and artificial intelligence have allowed even small fringe groups outsized power to stir up conflict. As an author, my task is to somehow arrive at a solution to the conflict by the end of a book.
But in my country, the United States of America, we have twisted our political thinking to resemble geopolitical conflicts where we are so set in our beliefs that conflict is acceptable. The assassination of Charlie Kirk lit up my Facebook account with posts that even international political leaders defending their beliefs would reject. How can a citizen of a democracy based on liberty rejoice in the death of someone whose entire career was about encouraging debate among divergent views? One post from a conservative friend caught me completely off guard: "The left needs to remember that we are the side with the guns."
That statement is only true if the right believes that the solution to our disagreements is civil war. In the interim, the man who killed Charlie Kirk and the person who shot up the ICE facility in California prove that the other side also has a small arsenal. Are we so polarized that that is acceptable? My conservative friend's post only makes sense if we allow ourselves to slide into actual armed conflict.
One additional observation: in these examples, the weapon at the scene of the crime did not pull its own trigger. A warped human was responsible for the act. There is a lot of data indicating that the shooters were radicalized by obsessively following divisive media and posts. It would be interesting to know if they ever actually talked with people with divergent views. If they did, they might have at least understood the "other side."
I overheard a conversation a week ago that I appreciated. One person, a staunch progressive, was bemoaning the change in American politics. He noted that many of his liberal friends were "disturbed" by the changes in the country. "I'm willing to talk to conservative friends," he said, "but how do I explain what is happening to other progressives?"
The conservative at the table offered, "The country has been swinging left for three decades, longer than any period in our history without a swing the other way. Maybe it's just our turn."
I'm sure that didn't change the progressive's mind, but he nodded and smiled. They ordered another round. They were talking.