Opinion: In a democracy, numbness is dangerous

By Jeff Worrell

There was a time not that long ago, when political violence was a national emergency.

Now it’s Tuesday.

What used to stop the nation in its tracks has become background noise in the American news cycle. Shots fired at public officials. Threats to school board members. Election workers needing security details. Once, these were seen as attacks on democracy itself.

Today, they are met with hashtags, memes, and a dangerous quiet.

This quiet isn’t peace. It’s numbness. And numbness is fertile soil for normalization.

When violence stops being shocking, it stops being rare. And when we fail to name it for what it is — an attack not just on people, but on the idea of civil society — we risk losing the very thing that keeps our disagreements from becoming battlegrounds.

Abraham Lincoln once said, “I don’t like that man. I must get to know him better.” Imagine that. Dislike wasn’t a cue for dismissal or destruction — it was an invitation to understand.

Contrast that with today’s climate, where disliking someone’s politics can feel like a license to dehumanize, threaten, or worse.

Blame is easy. Solutions aren’t. But perhaps we start by refusing to look away. By calling out violent rhetoric, not just from “the other side,” but from people we agree with. By modeling what it means to live in tension without reaching for the matchstick. And above all, by defending the hard, slow work of civility as a radical act of resistance.

We can’t afford to be casual about this anymore. Democracy doesn’t require everyone to be polite — but it absolutely demands that we reject force as a substitute for persuasion.

The stakes aren’t theoretical. They’re real. And they’re rising.