Politics has always involved disagreement. A healthy country should be able to argue vigorously about taxes, foreign policy, abortion, immigration, health care, education, and the proper role of government without treating political opponents as enemies who deserve suffering or death.

That distinction matters because political rhetoric does not remain confined to television studios, campaign rallies, or social media.

A recent survey discussed on The Daniel Cohen Show asked Democratic respondents how they would react to a hypothetical headline announcing President Donald Trump had been assassinated at a rally. The transcript cites the results as evidence of a disturbing willingness among some Americans to respond positively to political violence.

A survey cannot establish that respondents would personally commit violence, and attitudes expressed in a poll should not be treated as evidence that an entire political party supports assassination. But even hypothetical approval of political murder should trouble Americans regardless of who the target is.

That principle has to work in every direction.

Political violence against Donald Trump is wrong. Violence against Democratic officials is wrong. Celebrating the murder of a conservative activist is wrong. Celebrating an attack on a progressive activist would be wrong.

A political culture becomes dangerous when disagreement is no longer enough and opponents have to be humiliated, harmed, or eliminated.

Political Violence Should Not Have a Party

The attempted assassination of Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, demonstrated how quickly political hostility can become something much more serious. The transcript also points to the killing of Charlie Kirk and the continuing controversy surrounding responses to political violence.

The deeper question is what kind of culture develops when suffering itself becomes partisan.

The 2017 attack on Senator Rand Paul offers a smaller but revealing example. MSNBC anchor Kasie Hunt introduced coverage of Paul's injuries by calling the incident one of her “favorite stories,” before immediately clarifying her concern for the senator. Paul suffered six broken ribs in the attack. The comment generated criticism at the time, and Hunt apologized, saying she had chosen her words poorly.

That distinction matters. An irresponsible comment should not automatically be interpreted as proof that someone celebrates political violence. Corrections and apologies matter too.

But so does the underlying standard.

Nobody's broken ribs should become funny because of the letter beside his name. Nobody's assassination should become acceptable because of political hatred. And nobody's murder should become easier to dismiss because the victim belonged to the wrong ideological camp.

Christians should be particularly careful here. Human dignity does not disappear when someone votes differently.

The command to love one's enemies is most revealing when there actually are enemies to love.

Foreign Policy Exposes the Difference Between Slogans and Consequences

That same need for moral clarity appears in foreign policy.

At a University of Michigan event, Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed was questioned by a student who described relatives suffering under Iran's government and asked about El-Sayed's previous comments concerning Iran and its leadership. El-Sayed responded that the United States should not pursue regime change and said he supports “freedom and democracy for the people of Iran,” while arguing that democratic change should come from Iranians themselves.

There is a legitimate policy debate underneath that exchange.

Opposing American-led regime change is not the same thing as supporting the Iranian government. American policymakers have debated intervention, sanctions, military force, diplomacy, and regime change for decades. But candidates asking voters for significant national authority should expect difficult questions about how their principles translate into policy when authoritarian governments repress their own citizens.

The same is true of Israel.

Missile defense can sound like an abstraction until a siren gives a family seconds to reach a shelter. Iron Dome is designed to intercept rockets and other airborne threats headed toward populated areas. Arguments over American support for the system therefore involve more than budget lines; they involve competing judgments about U.S. foreign policy, Israeli security, regional stability, and civilian protection.

Political language becomes much easier when the human consequences remain theoretical.

That reality became painfully tangible this week for Israeli Ambassador to the United States Yechiel Leiter. His son Neria, an IDF reservist, was seriously wounded in a car-ramming attack at a checkpoint in the West Bank. Another son, Moshe Yedidya Leiter, was killed in Gaza in November 2023.

Arguments over Israel, Iran, terrorism, and American foreign policy deserve serious debate. They also involve families for whom those debates are not academic.

Truth Still Matters When It Complicates the Argument

Political rhetoric becomes especially dangerous when facts are treated as raw material rather than constraints.

French President Emmanuel Macron provided a striking example at the United Nations this week when he said Hamas had “never operated” in the West Bank. A French official subsequently said Macron meant that Hamas had never governed the West Bank. Those are materially different claims. Hamas has operated in the West Bank even though it has not governed the territory.

Corrections matter because words matter, particularly when they come from heads of state discussing one of the world's most contentious conflicts.

The same principle applies closer to home.

CNN, MS NOW, and Politico recently sued the Trump administration after their reporters were barred from White House grounds. The administration defended the action by accusing the organizations of dishonest reporting; the outlets argued that exclusion based on their coverage violated constitutional protections. A federal judge has since temporarily ordered their access restored, finding that the outlets were likely to succeed on their claim that the credentials were revoked without constitutionally adequate due process.

That dispute raises legitimate questions about both government power and media responsibility. News organizations can and should be criticized when reporting is inaccurate. Government officials can and should face scrutiny when they use official authority against news organizations they dislike.

Neither principle requires abandoning the other.

Truth cannot become a partisan possession, defended when useful and discarded when inconvenient.

That standard also belongs inside the church.

The transcript raises theological questions about churches and political candidates who identify themselves as Christian while challenging historic Christian doctrines.  Those disagreements should ultimately be evaluated by Scripture rather than by whether a candidate has the preferred political affiliation.

Christianity is not infinitely adjustable. The virgin birth, bodily resurrection, identity of Christ, authority of Scripture, sin, repentance, and salvation are not campaign language to be reshaped around contemporary politics.

At the same time, theological disagreement should be represented accurately. Criticism is strongest when it addresses what someone actually teaches rather than exaggerating the position for political effect.

That principle connects every issue here.

Political violence. Media coverage. Iran. Israel. Churches. Presidential power. International diplomacy.

Different subjects, same responsibility.

Tell the truth about opponents. Refuse to celebrate their suffering. Examine claims before repeating them. Apply standards consistently. Remember the human beings living with the consequences of political decisions.

For Christians, political engagement should never require surrendering those obligations. Scripture does not permit hatred simply because the stakes feel high. It does not permit dishonesty because the other side is dishonest. And it does not allow political allegiance to determine who deserves dignity.

Politics reveals plenty about candidates and parties.

How people speak about their opponents can reveal even more.

‍

Real Life Network provides biblically grounded programming examining faith, culture, and current events. Watch The Daniel Cohen Show for more conversations about the stories shaping American and international life.