Lauren Sjurseth lives in Sanford.
Much of today’s political violence — and, more broadly, political rhetoric — is deeply problematic and unhealthy. Importantly, this violence often arises not from ideology itself, but from the growing tendency to rely on overgeneralization, stereotyping, reductionism, homogenization and selective outrage/accountability in political discourse.
Overgeneralization is making sweeping statements that ignore nuance or exceptions. Stereotyping is assigning a fixed, oversimplified label to an entire group. Reductionism is condensing complex realities into a single simplistic explanation. Homogenization is treating distinct individuals or subgroups as though they are all the same.
Selective outrage/accountability is when individuals criticize poor behavior only in the opposing group while excusing it within their own in-group, or profess outrage about events affecting their preferred group. At the same time, they remain silent when equivalent events affecting the opposing group occur.
For instance, statements such as “Liberals are crazy and responsible for everything wrong in society,” “I could never be friends with a conservative because they are so ignorant,” “All popular people are shallow” or “Athletes are not intelligent” are deeply harmful.
Not only do such remarks erase the nuance and complexity within these groups, they also dehumanize everyone who belongs to them by casting them collectively as “bad” or as a “problem to be solved.”
Failing to recognize the inherently complex and contextual nature of social groups, events, political issues or challenges — and instead defaulting to broad generalizations because it is easier to assign blame — is far more dangerous than many acknowledge.
This pattern fuels hatred toward entire populations, often numbering in the thousands or millions, by reducing them to the object of one’s frustration and anger. History shows the catastrophic consequences of such thinking, from 9/11 to mass shootings to the Holocaust.
It is also essential to recognize that while political frustration is widespread, the vast majority of people do not resort to violence. Those who do — such as the perpetrators of the assassinations of Charlie Kirk, Melissa and Mark Hortman in Minnesota and others — are not representative of broader ideological groups.
Their actions cannot be attributed solely to political beliefs; rather, they reflect deeper individual predispositions toward violence. Treating them as emblematic of entire populations or select groups is both inaccurate and destructive.
To move forward, individuals must be willing to leave their comfort zones: engage in open, honest and balanced conversations with those they disagree with; consume news directly from across the political spectrum rather than relying on secondhand/the opposing side’s characterizations; and, most importantly, discipline themselves to adjust preconceptions when presented with new information.
Growth requires acknowledging that we are all wrong about some things, and true strength lies in admitting mistakes and course-correcting when necessary. By contrast, refusing to learn or evolve reflects weakness.
Society will never achieve total agreement, and that is not the goal. Differences in rational and reasonable thought should be embraced, not condemned. Disagreement should serve as an opportunity to listen, reflect and learn. It should always be done with thoughtfulness and respect. And if those principles cannot be mustered for any reason, just disengage.
In addition, practicing equal accountability and equal outrage is crucial. Unhealthy partisanship arises when individuals criticize poor behavior only in the opposing party while excusing it within their own.
Likewise, if one condemns the assassination of a liberal or Democratic leader, consistency demands equal condemnation of violence against conservative or Republican figures. Selective outrage undermines credibility and deepens division.
If we are to heal and create a healthier, more balanced society, we must reject the destructive patterns of blame, oversimplification, one-sided criticism and intellectual stubbornness. Only by embracing nuance, practicing accountability and fostering openness to learning can we begin to find the common ground to move forward together and achieve healthy balance in our society.