In Defense of Enlightened Politicization

The shooting at White House Correspondents’ Dinner changed how I look at the political landscape. I had just come home from visiting my grandparents on the evening of Saturday, April 25th, 2026 when I heard the news that there had been a shooter at the dinner where President Trump was sitting center stage. Due to my policy (or rather, inconvenient yet uncontrollable habit) of gluing myself to social media and news channels in the event of breaking news, I went to bed substantially late that night after the press conference and answers were starting to trickle in. Although I believe it was clear that this was an attempt on the much-hated President’s life, CNN surprised me with its shock and sympathy, showing me that the Left may still be capable of concern and compassion for those targeted in the midst of a crisis. Though, if it wasn’t for Kaitlan Collins’ presence at the dinner, CNN’s reaction might have been slightly different. 

Over on the right, much of the commentary surrounded the fact that the life of the President of the United States has, for a third time, been threatened. The 72-day lapse in funding for the Department of Homeland Security, under which the Secret Service operates, was apprehensively discussed as well. Every figure I heard observing the fact led with an “important” preface: “This threat to people’s lives isn’t to be politicized, HOWEVER, the Secret Service has been unfunded for more than 70 days.” It seems that “not politicizing” an issue has become the right’s way of virtue signaling, especially in the face of record-breaking leftist violence.

Would funding of the Secret Service have changed anything? Possibly. Is it still a worthy observation, regardless of how “political” the conversation may become? Yes. So, does a political observation that is nonetheless worthy of attention justify politicization of tragedies? This was a question I didn’t know how to answer. 

I believe to correctly and decisively yet compassionately answer this question, we must return to the fundamentals: What does it mean to politicize? 

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines politicizing as the act of “giv[ing] a political tone or character to.” But the misinterpretation of this concept, I believe, lies even deeper and begins in a great misunderstanding of what is political in the first place.

Of the 5 definitions of politics that Merriam Webster offers, some that include words like “competition,” “winning,” and “holding control” understandably leave a bad taste in any American’s mouth. This, in short, is the widely-accepted understanding of what politics is, which is part of the reason why people are disillusioned with it and shy away from any political conversation.

Giving a political tone or character to a tragedy for the intention of competing, winning, and holding control, is what I would call blind politicization. To immediately and untruthfully blame an opponent for a horrible deed, or a group of people for a problem is clearly not the path to progress, but a move towards demoralization. 

This is why the disclaimer that they don’t intend to politicize an issue is so common. However, in my study of politics during tragedy, the threat of "politicization" has become a self-driven instrument to silence justice-driven individuals who may otherwise threaten the errors that caused the tragedy in the first place. There are two types of politicization. Altogether, I believe, it is not wholly unjustified or unnecessary to politicize a tragedy. 

The abundance of media surrounding distasteful politics has caused us to  neglect the reason that government and public policy is needed in the first place. Greek statesman and Athenian general Pericles famously observed that “just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you.” Although the majority of the population may not want to run for election, leap into the public eye, become susceptible to mass scrutiny, sit in committee hearings, and make speeches to C-SPAN viewers, the fact that politics both affects and is affected by our actions indicates that it is more than just competition, victory, and control.

The word "politics” itself stems from the ancient Greek word “politika” which translates most directly to “public matters; civic affairs.” In turn, Merriam Webster offers one last definition of “politics”: “the total complex of relations between people living in society.”

There is a reason why the government (not the individual victim) is the defendant in a criminal trial, and, if a man is found guilty, pays any fines not to the victim, but to the government under whose jurisdiction he committed the crime. In modern western political philosophy, the government is the unitary body that represents the entire citizenry. Every crime, every tragedy, and every isolated incident, is inherently a deeply public matter. 

For this reason, the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, as well as every other (potential) tragedy is necessarily a political matter, rendering any conversation around it a political discussion by nature. 

Those who point out the context in which a tragedy occurred, as well as the institutional factors that led up to and enabled it are engaging in politiciztaion. It is a great disservice to the country and hindrance to the progress of society to ignore the obvious facts behind a public tragedy, yet because the threat of “politicization” is now a weapon against the noble-hearted who call out the obvious conditions of an incident, many effects are now analyzed without regard for their causes. 

  At its core, politics is the study and practice of the “complex of relations” of a group of people. When a balanced relationship is disrupted, the social contract of that society is violated. Because of this, without any form of enlightened politicization, which is essentially the prudent study of a tragedy, there will be no change. 

Aristotle aptly points out the need for a balance in every sphere of action or feeling in The Nicomachean Ethics. For example, the excess of “fear and confidence” is rashness, and a deficiency of such is cowardice. The only acceptable balance is the mean of the two: courage. A deficiency of the concept of politicization is blind sympathy, which culminates in the sentiment, “I’m sorry that your (daughter, son, mother, father, friend) was harmed or killed, but I’m too afraid (or complacent) to pay attention to any obvious causes behind his demise.” Its excess is blind politicization, in which every tragedy is instantly turned into a statistic to push a narrative for the sake of one’s own political advancement. Deficient action means no real change. Excessive rhetoric only divides the public and disrupts the social complex of relations further. In this case, I believe the balance (mean) of the two is enlightened politicization, which is driven by a passion for a healthy social relationship and a hunger for justice.

Given this new perspective of politicization, I agree, for example, that the tragedy of Laken Riley, a university student who was murdered by an illegal alien, was heavily politicized by Republicans when they signed the Laken Riley Act into law. It would be an uphill battle to argue that naming a bill, which requires DHS to detain illegals arrested for burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting, after a young woman who was killed by an illegal who had been previously arrested for exactly that. But it is difficult to make an argument as to why the Laken Riley Act might be an unjust law. Would it have prevented Laken Riley’s death? It’s very likely. Will it prevent illegal aliens who have been arrested for such crimes from committing tragedies in the future? I would make a sizable bet that it does. 

It is only right to conclude that the Laken Riley Act is a wonderful example of the necessity of enlightened politicization. If the obvious source of the problem had not been addressed, justice would not have been achieved, and the situation would not have improved. If the problem was politicized only to help those hungry for power, justice would be equally neglected. Neither happened, and the Laken Riley Act was signed into law, changing the course of many illegal aliens’ reigns of terror.

Behind every young woman who is killed is an inestimable group of people who experience the downstream effects: a family grieves a loved one, a college loses a student, the workforce loses a dedicated employee, a future husband loses a soulmate, and future children lose the chance at life.

The main objective of politics, in a just country with a good government, is to create a good society in which the rights of citizens are protected and the moral arc bends onwards to progress. If the true causes and effects of every tragedy that occurs are ignored by those who are supposed to be preventing such incidents, and viable remedies are thrown out of the Overton window as a result, the total complex of relations between people in that society is placed in grave danger. 

Facing the solvable problems that cause disruptions in our social fabric is not blind politicization, nor is it blind sympathy: it is the exact action that is necessary after a great tragedy is unleashed upon the public. 

I believe I can now freely and justly say that I am in favor of a balanced, enlightened politicization, and for the sake of the future of our country and the lives of those who live in it, I hope you are as well.