Therapist links polarization to violence after Charlie Kirk shooting; Kimmel canceled over comments

A week after an attack on a Utah college campus left MAGA figure Charlie Kirk fatally wounded, tributes and condemnations rolled in from across the political spectrum. The incident, in which Kirk was shot in the neck, drew swift public responses from U.S. leaders and prominent commentators. President Donald Trump called Kirk a 'martyr for truth and freedom,' while Vice President JD Vance said he was the 'smartest political operative I ever met.' Even stars on the opposite side of the aisle offered thoughts, though not all were sympathetic. Rosie O'Donnell offered support, saying the assassination was 'wrong on every level - #weareallamericans'. Amanda Seyfried, the actress, wrote online that Kirk 'was hateful' in the days after the shooting. And Jimmy Kimmel said the right was attempting to 'score political points' from Kirk's death, a stance that led to the show’s cancellation 'indefinitely' under the network’s decision.

There was also a wave of vitriolic online reaction targeting Kirk and his loved ones. Some commenters used phrases like 'rest in piss, scum,' while others argued that Kirk and his beliefs warranted hostility given current political divides. A third commenter welcomed Kirk’s death as 'divine justice.' In the wake of these responses, a public conversation emerged about the psychology of celebrating political violence and the language used to describe opponents.

A New York psychiatrist interviewed by the Daily Mail said the phenomenon may reflect a broader, troubling pattern in contemporary discourse. Dr Jonathan Alpert argued that while the murder itself is horrific, the ease with which some people justify it is equally alarming. 'The murder itself is horrific, but what is just as alarming is the ease with which people justify it,' he said. 'Once someone is seen as irredeemably evil, fantasies of their removal begin to feel like solutions rather than moral transgressions. Violence becomes thinkable, even necessary.' He described the behavior as a form of 'splitting,' a defense mechanism in which individuals cast others into rigid categories of 'all good' or 'all bad.'

Alpert warned that such patterns can be reinforced by poor therapy, in which practitioners validate extreme views instead of challenging them. 'Therapists who nod along when clients say it is a good thing a political opponent has been harmed or assassinated, it is reinforcing their patients' viewpoint,' he told the Daily Mail. In his view, good therapy should interrupt the thought process and push back against demonization, even when the subject is a highly polarizing figure. 'In good therapy, the therapist will intervene,' he said, 'to prevent hurt from turning into obsession and, in politics, into violence.'

The therapist also connected the Kirk case to other high-profile incidents. He noted that after the 2024 assassination attempt against former President Trump, some patients admitted disappointment that he survived, with one saying, 'It would’ve spared us the next four years.' He argued that such statements reflect a collapse of empathy and moral restraint that transcends political affiliation. 'This pathology isn’t confined to the left,' he added. 'In my office and on social media, I have heard conservatives call progressives 'traitors,' 'radicals' and 'groomers.' The logic is the same: once an opponent is painted not merely wrong but evil, violence begins to feel like justice.'

Alpert’s remarks, which the Daily Mail cited, align with broader concerns about how media narratives and political rhetoric may cultivate a climate where violence is in some minds construed as an instrument of moral correction. The Wall Street Journal has also highlighted his observations, noting that when rage or fantasies of destruction arise in therapy, the reflex can be to nod along rather than challenge them, potentially turning personal grievance into public violence. The expert emphasized that therapy should address these impulses directly, not validate them.

The case also references a pair of individuals linked to the period’s discussions of political violence. Alpert suggested that the suspected Kirk shooter, Tyler Robinson, 22, had engaged in splitting to justify his actions. Reports indicate Robinson texted his transgender partner Lance Twiggs, 22, saying, 'I had enough of his [Kirk's] hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out.' The psychologist also pointed to Ryan Routh, 59, described as Trump-sympathetic but with a messy mix of opinions, who allegedly had written a letter warning that if Trump won the election it would mark 'the end of democracy and the beginning of a Civil War.' Alpert linked these cases not by ideology but by a shared pattern of dehumanization and the belief that removing a political opponent would restore balance or meaning in their own lives.

The broader political context of these discussions centers on how prominent figures and media personalities respond to violence in a charged climate. While some expressed sympathy and condemnation following Kirk's death, others used the moment to argue about political strategies or to attack opponents. The Daily Mail report and subsequent coverage in The Wall Street Journal reflect a growing concern among psychologists and policymakers that an erosion of empathy and a normalization of aggressive language can lay the groundwork for more extreme actions. In the days since the incident, lawmakers, therapists and media analysts have called for renewed emphasis on civil discourse, nonviolent political engagement and media responsibility as a bulwark against a feedback loop that could prolong and deepen political violence.

Overall, experts urge a return to measured, principled dialogue and careful scrutiny of the language used by both politicians and the public. While the Charlie Kirk case has become a focal point for examining the consequences of polarization, the discussions spurred by Dr Alpert and others emphasize a longer-term need to address the mental health and social dynamics that can escalate disagreements into violence. In the US political landscape, where debates over policy and power are daily headlines, such guidance is viewed by many as essential to preserving democratic norms and public safety.