The Partisan Leadership of J.D. Vance

Radicals are cheering the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Partisans are pointing fingers. Right-wingers are fighting for control over his legacy, and left-wingers are trying to minimize it. And many in the middle are grieving. Americans are looking for leaders who can bring down the temperature and lead us on a better path.

Last week, J.D. Vance had a chance to lead, and he failed.

Vance and Kirk were friends, and Vance was the first guest host of the Charlie Kirk show. It was probably hard for Vance, as it has been for many Americans who admired Kirk. In the podcast, he went off on the radical liberals and the idea of calling for unity.

He says, “There is no unity with people who scream at children over their parents’ politics. There is no unity with someone who lies about what Charlie Kirk said in order to excuse his murder. There is no unity with someone who harasses an innocent family the day after the father of that family. And there is no unity with the people who celebrate Charlie Kirk’s assassin.”

He delivered this message with passion and vigor. You can hear the emotion in every word of every sentence. He also shared polls that pointed the finger at liberals. Saying they are more accepting of political violence than conservatives.

Vance may be right that it’s tough to unite with a group that celebrates any assassination. But that group is radical, and they exist on both sides. By focusing on the partisan effect, either because he’s so wrapped up in the loss of his friend that he can’t see clearly, or because he is caught up in the partisan war for power, he is missing an opportunity to lead.

What he should be doing is rallying together with liberals who are also mourning Kirk’s death and the implications on our country’s stability. He should be uniting the non-radical group together, but by pointing the finger and placing blame on liberals, he is pushing us away from each other.

Ben Shapiro appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher after the assassination. On the show, Shapiro discusses the permission structures in society that encourage radicals to act with political violence. Permission structures refer to the words, emotions, and behaviors our leaders use to describe their opponents.

What we need in this moment are leaders who understand their responsibilities. Understand that their words carry enormous power, and they reverberate throughout society. They should realize that society is in a fragile state, and there are people out there who hear the anger, frustration, and finger-pointing, and they take it as permission to act on their worst impulses.

The history of political violence in the United States is littered with men who were lost, radicalized, and acted on the permission structures of the time.

Charles Guiteau, Leon Czolgosz, and Lee Harvey Oswald were lost men who became radicalized during a period of American history marked by significant social and political divisions. They heard what they wanted to hear. They felt like they had permission to act.

The most glaring example of this is the assassination of James Garfield, captured in the book Destiny of the Republic by Candice Millard. Charles Guiteau was arrested shortly after shooting President Garfield at a train station in 1881, saying, “a brave man, who is determined upon a desperate deed.”

Guiteau was a radicalized member of the Stalwart political faction. In his pocket was a note for General Sherman saying he was a Stalwart and that Garfield’s death was a political necessity. The leader of the Stalwarts, Roscoe Conkling, was in a fight with Garfield and his faction, the Half-Breads, “over the spoils of office.”

Garfield was charged in the press with an “unholy and corrupt compact.” Guiteau believed he was acting for his faction. He expected the troops to be sent to free him. He thought he was following the wishes of his leaders.

Chester A. Arthur, as Vice President, was a member of the Stalwart faction. When he became president after Garfield died, he felt guilty about Garfield’s murder because he felt complicit in the rhetoric.

Instead of pointing the partisan finger, Arthur used the tragedy as a moment to reflect on his role; in doing so, he separated himself from the contentious Conkling and governed in a less partisan way as President. Thus, lowering the political temperature.

What we need now are leaders who reflect on their actions instead of pointing fingers. Leaders who understand the responsibility of their power and seek to limit the number of permission structures created with their words and actions.

Leaders who understand that it is not they, but we.

Leaders must bring together the people who oppose political violence and find common ground. Leaders have a responsibility to lower the temperature with a calm and balanced demeanor.

These are the moments when our leaders must rise to the occasion and put partisanship behind them. On a high-profile stage, it was a moment for J.D. Vance to lead, and he missed it.

Peace & Love,

Jeff Mayhugh