A Minnesota lawmaker and her husband were murdered in their home, and a state senator and his wife were shot in a brutal ambush they barely survived. The suspect, disguised as a police officer and driving a stolen squad car, carried out what authorities are calling a “politically motivated assassination.” Governor Tim Walz actually got it right with that description. Investigators found a manifesto listing both Democrat and Republican targets. It was premeditated, methodical, and deeply disturbing. If you’re not alarmed, you’re not paying attention. This is no isolated event—it’s part of a growing pattern of political violence enabled by selective outrage and moral double standards.
Let’s not pretend this came out of nowhere. Political violence has been simmering for years, but we’ve been conditioned to only see it when it fits a certain narrative.
Where was the wall-to-wall media condemnation when left-wing rioters in Los Angeles were hurling Molotov cocktails and rocks at ICE agents and police officers or physically attacking federal agents? Instead of condemnation of this violence, Democrats rushed to defend the rioters as “peaceful protesters,” and legitimate acts of the “resistance.”
That word—resistance—became the moral shield for acts of lawless aggression. And when one side gets to justify violence as righteous, it sends a dangerous message to everyone else: that violence is acceptable if your cause is deemed just enough.
Of course, when the violence became too much for them to downplay, they blamed it on President Trump. In both cases, the message is clear: political violence is tolerated by the radical left, as long as you feel it’s for the right cause. That’s how arson at federal buildings becomes “activism.” That’s how a deranged gunman felt justified in shooting up Republicans at a congressional baseball game. That’s how two people felt they were morally obligated to try to assassinate President Trump. And that’s how we end up with lawmakers in Minnesota being shot at their homes, one murdered in cold blood alongside her husband.
Related: Gunman Targeting State Lawmakers Kills Former Minnesota House Speaker
Condemning political violence shouldn’t be about defending specific politicians or parties—it’s about defending the rule of law. You don’t have to like Melissa Hortman or John Hoffman to know they didn’t deserve this. You don’t have to agree with a Republican or a Democrat to understand that bullets are not a substitute for ballots and peaceful protest. But when leaders only speak out when it’s politically convenient, the fabric of our republic tears just a little more.
The attack in Minnesota ought to be a national wake-up call—but let’s not kid ourselves, it won’t be. Not for those who’ve spent years excusing or ignoring political violence when it came from their own side. The shooter’s motive isn’t known yet, but two Democrat lawmakers were his first targets before he was confronted by police and went on the run. Even so, the response from Republicans has been swift and unequivocal—no attempts to justify the violence, no blame-shifting, no hollow talk of “resistance.” The condemnation was bipartisan, as it should be. That contrast speaks volumes.
If we want to avoid more tragedies like this one, we need moral clarity—not conditional outrage. Political leaders must make it clear that no ideology, no grievance, and no partisan score is worth a single drop of blood, or rampant violence and vandalism. If they can’t say that without qualification, they have no business holding public office.
