Americans have laid a bed of concrete. Now we all must sleep on it uncomfortably. It’s going to be a long night. Our national leaders have made it clear they are not interested in healing or unity. Just look at the response to the horrific murder of Charlie Kirk. Instead, the reaction was blame. Not targeted blame, but ready, fire, aim blame. The left is to blame. The right is to blame. It’s a tactic straight from the Hegelian dialectic playbook. Here’s how it works.
Historically, presidents are expected to serve as comforters-in-chief. Most of us are old enough to remember how our leaders responded during a crisis. The most recent example was President George W. Bush’s “Bullhorn Speech,” standing on the rubble of the World Trade Center. “I hear you,” Bush said, “The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.”
President Trump chose not to serve as the leader of a nation united despite differences in response to Charlie Kirk’s murder. Instead, Trump said, “The radicals on the left are the problem,” he said. “And they’re vicious. And they’re horrible.” Clearly, the President is not interested in unity and shared values.
The terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was different in that it came from outside. Kirk’s murder was from within, and Trump has warned that the biggest threat to the United States is “within.” If we continue on this current path, sadly, Trump will be prophetic.
Getting back to the Hegelian dialectic playbook, it begins with portraying the left as the enemy. Solidarity is defined as being on one’s side—the base. As Steve Bannon said on his War Room show, “Charlie Kirk is a casualty of the political war. We are at war in this country, and you have to have a steely resolve.” Laura Loomer posted on X that Kirk’s death, “The left is a national security threat.”
Those words and the words of others create the concrete bed. Things are about to become more uncomfortable.
The next step is the clash between the desire for unity and the Administration’s divisive strategy. The presidency itself becomes a battleground for partisanship. Citizens are expected to pick an identity flag and raise it on the front yard flagpole. This isn’t about a political party, but about which side you will serve. It’s now about conflict, not politics. Leadership fosters division, and safety comes only from aligning with your side.
This is our new normal.
Things are about to get especially tough for journalists. If the administration treats politics as war, then reporting itself becomes suspect. Journalists will be pressured to pick a side. The simple act of describing reality could be seen as a partisan move. Reporters face the risk of being labeled enemies of the people or unwitting pawns of “the other side.”
Journalists rely on evidence, context, and verification. But in an environment where leaders prioritize loyalty to identity flags over facts, truth-telling may be viewed as radical. Think of it as emotion over verification, spectacle over substance. For journalists, the challenge is not only to get the facts right but also to convince a public conditioned to distrust any fact that doesn’t align with their preferred “army.”
The metaphor of America’s “concrete bed” also describes journalists. Reporters wake up each day in an environment of hostility, harassment, and algorithmic noise. They still need to report clearly and bravely, knowing that half their audience already believes they are liars. The exhaustion is absolute. However, journalism’s goal—to provide citizens with the tools to govern themselves—requires perseverance, even in the face of discomfort.
A journalist’s highest duty in this environment is to avoid taking sides and instead focus on what unites us: what remains true, what still connects us, and what solutions or shared values may arise. The press must resist weaponization and instead embody the practices of verification, transparency, and accountability that democracy demands.
Journalists face the critical challenge of documenting the nation’s slide into polarization without falling into it — of reporting fairly in an era when fairness itself is often dismissed as weakness. Their role may be less about comforting us and more about waking us up: reminding the nation that if we keep building walls of concrete, someday there may be no place left for comfort at all.
Journalists are facing a historic challenge. Who’s up for it?
Correction: In last week’s column, “A Saint Visits and an Editorial Meeting,” I used the word “chemtrails” when I should have used “contrails.” I should have used greater precision in my selection of words.