Welcome back to the Deep Dive. Today, we're jumping
right into something that's really taken over
the headlines. I mean, just dominated. The tragic
killing of Charlie Kirk. It's shocking, obviously.
But these moments, you know... as awful as they
are, they often open these like stark windows
into what's really going on deeper down in our
society and politics. Absolutely. And that's
what we're aiming for today. We've pulled together
a lot of recent analysis, research, news reports.
We're not just going to recite the facts you've
already heard. We want to dig into the broader
implications, really pull out the key insights
so you get a fuller picture, you know, beyond
just the breaking newsflash. OK, so let's start
peeling back those layers, the immediate details
around on the killing itself. The accused killer,
Tyler Robinson, he hasn't confessed. That seems
significant right off the bat. Yeah, it does.
It tells you this isn't some open and shut case.
But interestingly, while Robinson isn't talking,
his roommate, Lance Twiggs, is. Twiggs, who shared
an apartment with him in St. George, Utah, he's
been cooperating fully with the authorities,
turned over communications from Robinson. So
Twiggs is cooperating. And then there were these,
well, rumors, whispers about their relationship.
What came out about that? Well, those whispers
became official pretty quickly. Utah Governor
Spencer Cox, he's a Republican, he publicly confirmed
it. He stated that the suspect's roommate was
indeed a boyfriend who is transitioning from
male to female. Wow. Yeah. So that adds this
whole new dimension, right? Investigators now
have to ask, did Kirk's... very public, very
strong anti -trans stance player role here. Governor
Cox also mentioned Robinson's worldview seemed
shaped by quote, very dark places of the internet.
So you've got ideology potentially mixed into.
That is a lot to process. It makes you think
though, these huge shocking political events
happen and then they seem to fade so fast from
the news cycle. Is this just another awful incident
or is it? part of something bigger in the US.
It's a really important question. And when you
look at the history, the pattern is frankly disturbing.
Political violence is, in a grim way, as American
as apple pie. Think about it just recently. Gabrielle
Giffords in 2011, Steve Scalise shot in 2017,
those two Minnesota state reps just this past
June, and now Charlie Kirk. Right. And historically,
four presidents assassinated. 11 members of Congress,
four governors, dozens of state legislators,
mayors. The list goes on. It's a long, sad history.
But here's the thing that worries me and a lot
of analysts. It's the normalization. Lincoln's
assassination, right? Still taught 160 years
later, these modern shootings. They might get
a couple of news cycles, if that much, and are
then gone with the wind. Yeah, you see the spike
online. Exactly. Google searches surged that
day, then boom, they plummet. Newspaper coverage
does the same. It's like the collective reaction
is, oh, another one. Awful. OK, what's next?
That rapid desensitization, that's really worrying.
It starts to feel like this is just normal life
in America, which is terrible for our civic health.
That's a really sobering thought, that desensitization,
maybe for some it's not indifferent. maybe it's
just exhaustion, like the problems feel too huge.
On that note, Political Magazine actually gathered,
what, 10 experts on political violence to ask,
okay, where do we go from here? What do they
say? Yeah, they brought together a range of voices
and their insights really map out the current
climate, including maybe some of that weariness
you mentioned. We can kind of group their thoughts
first on the problem and its roots. Barbara Walter,
she points to four conditions where violence
often spikes. Democracy weakening, society deeply
split along lines like race or religion, leaders
tolerating or even hinting at violence, and easy
gun access. Her take. The U .S. checks all four
boxes right now, which is... Then Sean Westwood
points out how leaders can exploit the idea that
the other side is a vast, murderous faction.
It works for short -term gain, but it eats away
at stability, even though, he notes, only like
2 % of Americans actually approve of political
assassinations. The perception is what gets exploited.
And Erica France says, look, the crook killing
isn't in a vacuum. Think January 6 rioters, other
incidents. She sees a big problem in the personalization
of politics leaders seen as just out for themselves,
not representing the people. Okay, so that's
the roots. What about the nature of the violence
itself? Client of Raleigh offers a slightly different
angle. She sees the U .S. trend more as lone
-actor violence without a clear partisan trend.
Think John Wilkes Booth or Lee Harvey Oswald.
Her point is, this suggests maybe we're not on
the verge of full -blown civil war, which is
something, I guess. But it does mean we absolutely
need to look at gun access and mental health
support. And how do we break this cycle? What
about leadership? That's the crucial part. Joel
Buscher warns that just cracking down hard could
actually backfire, lead to more violence. Leaders,
he says, have to condemn all violence unequivocally,
even if it seems to help their side politically.
And they need to acknowledge people are genuinely
unhappy with the system. Acknowledge the anger,
but condemn the violence. Exactly. Saulvault
-Hillerson agrees when people feel the system
ignores them, violence can start to look justified
to some. And look at the scale. Shannon Hiller's
group tracked 250 threats against politicians
just in the first half of 2025 across 40 states.
Her point is We don't have to accept this. We
need cross -party efforts to reject violence,
stop the blame game. 250 threats. Yeah. Yeah.
Dolly Berkovitz adds that glorifying attacks
is super dangerous. Risks normalizing them could
lead to tit -for -tat violence. She says leaders
have to lower the temperature, stop attacking
their favorite enemies. Makes sense. Robert Pape,
who actually predicted back in June we were nearing
major political violence, he sees this as a critical
moment. He's calling for every leader, president
on down, to put Strong video condemnations of
political violence pushed them hard on social
media, especially TikTok, aimed right at their
own supporters. A really direct call to action
for leaders. Absolutely. And finally, Eduardo
Moncada echoes the concern about normalization
people justifying violence if the system fails
them. He says partisan narratives have to stop.
Leaders need accountability for dehumanizing
language. And we have to correct this false idea
that the other side actually wants violence.
Those are some really powerful and honestly pretty
disturbing takeaways about the situation here.
But Kirk's death. It didn't just stay within
U .S. borders, did it? We saw international reactions,
too. Condemnations from Italy's Maloney, France,
the U .K.'s Starmer. Yes, there were those official
condemnations calling it atrocious and so on.
But what was really striking was how partisan
other international reactions were. How so? Well,
Hungary's Viktor Orban, for instance, immediately
pointed the finger at the progressive liberal
left. You saw vigils for Kirk popping up, organized
by far -right groups in places like London, Berlin,
Rome. Right, I heard about the London march.
Yeah, that was huge. Over 100 ,000 people, led
by Tommy Robinson, the far -right activist, it
ended in clashes with police, arrests, officers
injured, and across Europe, populist parties
are seizing on Kirk's murder, pushing anti -immigrant,
anti -globalist, anti -elite messages, sometimes
using the slogan, mega, make Europe great again.
Mega. Wow, so it's like a parallel movement.
What's the historical context of this transatlantic
linkup? It's a real paradox, actually. You have
the American right and the European right aligning
on goals in a way we haven't really seen since
the Cold War ended when anti -communism was the
glue. What's weird is that many of these groups
now cooperating have traditionally viscerally
hated transatlantic cooperation. It's a strange
new dynamic. Fascinating. OK, let's bring it
back home. How did Donald Trump himself react?
especially considering those expert calls for
de -escalation we just talked about. Well, reports
say he was in shock, anger, and disbelief. Kirk
was seen as a really key ally, a personal friend.
Donald Trump Jr. even said Kirk was like another
son to his father. Trump acted accordingly, sent
JD Vance on Air Force Two for the casket, awarded
Kirk the Presidential Medal of Freedom posthumously,
planned to attend the funeral. So... a very personal,
strong reaction. But what about his public statements
in light of the calls for unity? That's where
the contrast is really stark. On Fox, Ainsley
Earhart asked him directly, how can the country
come together now? And Trump's response was,
well, he said, I'll tell you something that's
going to get me in trouble, but I couldn't care
less. The radicals on the right oftentimes are
radical because they don't want to see crime.
They're saying we don't want these people coming
in. We don't want you burning our shopping. So.
You notice, instead of a unifying message, it
pivots back to grievances, kind of justifying
the radical right's anger. It wasn't the de -escalation
many experts were hoping for. Yeah, quite a departure
from those calls for unity. Okay, the Kurt killing
is obviously a huge tragic event, highlighting
these deep tensions. But these political currents...
They run deeper than just specific events, right?
They're changing how leaders operate, how the
system itself works. Let's shift gears a bit.
What other big shifts are you seeing? Well, one
really interesting shift, I think, comes from
former President Obama. Remember his famous 2004
speech? No red America, no blue America, only
the United States of America. Yeah, iconic. Well,
sources suggest he's basically decided. He was
wrong. He's reportedly endorsed California Governor
Gavin Newsom's strategy to make California even
more blue. It's like an acceptance of the kind
of unity he envisioned back then is, quote, passe,
a pretty significant turnaround from his earlier
idealism. That's striking. And how does that
fit with, say, Donald Trump's approach in this
divided landscape? It fits perfectly in a way,
because sources make it clear Trump sees himself
as the president of the red states of America.
He apparently doesn't give a rat's about the
blue states, views them almost as internal enemies.
And it's not just him. Think back to Steve Bannon
in 2016 saying, we didn't win an election to
bring the country together. Or even Trump's OMB
director, Russell Vaught, complaining appropriations
are too bipartisan. It feels like a deliberate
turning away from trying to bridge divides, almost
institutionalizing the separation. And that separation,
that drive for partisan advantage, seems really
visible in the fights over gerrymandering, too.
Missouri just passed a map targeting Emanuel
Cleaver, a Democrat in a D -plus -12 seat. Yeah,
they redrew it specifically to make it almost
impossible for him to win, even though the district
leans heavily Democratic. Voters might get a
say because of an emergency clause, but it's
a clear power play. And Ohio looks like it's
next. They're expected to go after Democratic
reps Marcy Capture and Amelia Sykes. So what's
the bigger picture here with gerrymandering?
The big implication is the House becoming more
and more like the Electoral College, where whichever
party controls the state legislature can basically
draw lines to guarantee they get nearly all the
House seats in that state, regardless of the
statewide popular vote. It's like this huge bug
in the Constitution that nobody, not even Madison,
really foresaw. And the Supreme Court has mostly
stayed out of it, which just lets the political
maneuvering run wild. So faced with these deep
divisions, the gerrymandering, What's the strategy
for Democrats? How do they connect with voters
who might feel the whole system is broken? Well,
two Democratic strategists, Ashley Etienne and
Jesse Lee, they've put out this memo arguing
for a pretty direct approach. campaign hard on
the culture of corruption and abuse of power.
Their thinking is people already feel the system
is rigged. So validate that feeling and then
point fingers, arguing Trump is the one rigging
it. They list specific examples they'd use, alleging
the DOJ covered up Eckstein's crimes, firing
officials who disagreed, rigging elections via
gerrymandering, using crypto for donor access,
weaponizing law enforcement. They argue this
worked in 2018 when Democrats picked up 41 seats.
Right. So it's not just complaining. proposing
fixes to exactly it's not just diagnosis it's
prescription they propose a whole package of
reforms things like banning stock ownership for
officials except broad ETFs, diversified funds,
ending gerrymandering for good, real binding
ethics rules for everyone with teeth, Senate
approval needed for emergency declarations limited
to 30 days, no more acting heads of departments
for long periods, repealing presidential emergency
powers, making it impeachable to mess with congressionally
approved funding, court reforms, especially the
Supreme Court, and big campaign finance changes,
public matching funds, making superpig donors
transparent. It's a pretty sweeping list aimed
systemic change. Okay, shifting from political
strategy to, well, kitchen table stuff. Health
insurance. We're hearing premiums might be about
to jump a lot. What's going on there? Yeah, this
could be a big deal for a lot of people and it
definitely has political angles. There are a
few key drivers, the biggest one. Those enhanced
subsidies for health insurance, the ones put
in place back in 2021 during the pandemic. They're
set to expire December 31st, 2025. If they expire,
some people could see premium heights of 50 percent,
which often means younger, healthier people drop
coverage, making the insurance pool riskier and
driving costs up even more for everyone else.
It's a potential spiral. OK, that's huge. What
else? Well, they're also the proposed Trump terrace
on imported drugs, potentially up to 250 percent.
Even if they're not enacted yet, insurers are
likely already pricing in that risk because supply
chains are global. And you've got the rising
cost of new, expensive drugs like the GLP -1s
for weight loss and diabetes. That's adding pressure,
too. So politically? Politically, Democrats have
a clear line of attack here. They can blame Republicans
for letting the subsidies expire and for proposing
the tariffs. It could be a really powerful Democratic
weapon heading into future elections. OK, finally,
let's just touch on the human side of all this
pressure. We heard about Dr. Yadira Caraveo in
Colorado ending her campaign. She was the first
Latina to represent the state in Congress. Yeah,
her story is really poignant. It highlights the
intense pressure these politicians are under.
Sources say she cited mental health issues, including
very sadly, to suicide attempts. And she spoke
about the stigma associated with mental health.
It's just a stark reminder of the human cost
behind the political battles. Absolutely. And
on a related note, though, for different reasons,
Representative Mike McCaul, a senior Republican
from Texas, he's decided not to run again, looking
for private sector work instead. It just shows
how demanding these jobs are. We have covered
a lot of ground today, a truly deep dive from
the shocking killing of Charlie Kirk and what
that reveals about political violence. And the
normalization of it. Right, that normalization.
To the shifts in political strategy, the mechanics
of things like gerrymandering, and these real
-world pressures like health insurance costs.
Yeah, and if you try to connect all those dots
the bigger picture, it's challenging. We're clearly
in an environment where democratic norms feel
strained, divisions are sharp, both here and
globally. And that leaves a really important
question for you, the listener, to think about.
In this kind of world where division is often
exploited, where violence risks becoming normalized,
how do we as individuals keep thinking critically?
How do we demand accountability from leaders?
And how do we resist these forces trying to pull
us apart? It's definitely something to mull over
as we all try to navigate these really complex
times.