Editorials / Opinions

Republican strategist and Fox News contributor Karl Rove used his op-ed in The Wall Street Journal to push back against the emerging narrative among some that Charlie Kirk's tragic death was the work of some shadowy collective force – a nebulous "they."

"There has been a disturbing and growing undercurrent in our national conversation and on the internet – a pronounced emphasis on 'they' and 'them,'" Rove wrote. "Charlie would be alive but for 'them.' 'They' killed him. 'They' are responsible for his death.'" He continued, unequivocally: "No. Charlie Kirk wasn't killed by 'them.' 'They' didn't pull the trigger. One person did – apparently a young man driven by a terrible hate."

"Using Charlie's murder to justify retaliation against political rivals is wrong and dangerous. It will further divide and embitter our country. No good thing will come of it."

He concluded with a call for unity and rational discourse: "Violence has no role in our country's politics. Reasoned discourse is essential to our democracy. Conservative and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson has accused the Trump administration of using Charlie Kirk's death to trample on the First Amendment, the right to Free Speech.

The outspoken Conservative said that Kirk was a "free speech champion" and hoped that his murder wouldn't be used as "leverage," which is exactly what happened.

After Kirk's death, Trump-appointed Attorney General Pam Bondi said the Justice Department would "absolutely target" anyone who engages in "hate speech" – a move widely perceived as a threat toward those who oppose the administration. This is ironic when you look at the post from Charlie Kirk where he wrote: "Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free."

Sincerely,

Joan Reading, Union Dale, PA

Everyone wants to be understood. We experience frustration when we are not. In most interactions we would like to convey our thoughts, feelings, opinions, and beliefs. However, communication problems often arise because all parties involved are simultaneously striving to be understood, with no one seeking to understand.

This scenario happens even during courteous, polite discussions. So while one person is talking, the other is contemplating what to say next, rather than focusing on listening. The result is little or no meaningful interaction.

To understand before being understood requires you to first pay attention to what is being said. The goal is to hear the words as well as seeking to understand what the other person means. A full understanding requires an awareness of more than just the words being spoken. One has to observe body language, tone of voice, volume, and facial expressions.

This entails total focus on the other person. You want to observe all the details. Communication is much more than the words used. It's also how it's being said. If you are busy thinking about your own response, it's impossible to accurately perceive the other person.

Learning to concentrate on the other person, in order to understand what they are saying, takes practice. Start by monitoring your thoughts while you're listening. Chances are you'll be surprised by your lack of focus. The ultimate goal is to have all of your attention on the other person so you are really hearing rather than thinking. You can get there, but it will be a transition process from your current habits.

After listening, and before responding, ask questions to verify your understanding. By so doing, you will demonstrate your concern. Additionally, you will immediately correct any misinterpretation. When someone feels you are interested in what they are saying, the chances for an effective interchange are substantially increased.

When you fully understand the other person, you are then in a position to respond appropriately. Only by recognizing what is being said, will you be able to reasonably decide what to say, and how to say it, in order to have yourself understood. If your response is based on a misunderstanding, any subsequent remarks you make will be ineffective.

Once you understand, what is the best approach to be understood? First of all, know what your objective is. What are you trying to accomplish? Your goal is to convey your thoughts in a manner that will enable you to accomplish your objective. Remain calm, speak clearly, and address your issues. When you are feeling angry or upset, your ability to think logically and act in your best interest will be diminished. Postpone any conversation until your emotions subside.

What you say should be in terms that the other person can relate to. Attack the problem not the person. Asking questions such as, "what would you do in my situation?" are very effective in getting the other person to understand you. Making insulting or derogatory statements will prevent you from achieving anything positive. Furthermore, they can make a situation worse, creating additional problems.

Communication is not a battle or contest. If no one is listening, there is no point in talking. At least one person must be trying to understand. Ideally it should be all involved. Arguing is not communicating. Arguing results in an exacerbation of problems. Shouting is also pointless since it usually causes the other person to either shout back or walk away. Insulting or degrading comments are just as destructive.

Once you understand, you are in a position to be better understood. Remember this principle and your interaction with others will be much more productive.

Sincerely,

Bryan Golden

NOW AVAILABLE: "Dare to Live Without Limits," the book. Visit www.BryanGolden.com or your bookstore. Bryan is a management consultant, motivational speaker, author, and adjunct professor. Email Bryan at bryan@columnist.com or write him c/o this paper. © 2025 Bryan Golden