The murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk highlighted the intolerance that has reigned for years in a polarized United States. And unfortunately, some sectors are using the tragedy to increase the volume of divisive rhetoric and promise a "war" against the "radical left" who they blame for the death of the young activist.

During the past decade, inflammatory rhetoric, misinformation, and lies became part of the strategy and governing style of the current administration. The narrative previously limited to fringe white supremacist groups about the “invasion” of immigrants and the theory of the “great replacement” of whites by minorities became part of Republican discourse and public policy.

These white supremacists, driven by messages of intolerance that we are in a war of “them” against “us,” have moved from words to action in massacres such as the 2018 attack at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh and the 2019 attack at the Walmart store in El Paso, Texas, where the attacker wanted to stop the “invasion” of Hispanic immigrants, according to his own lawyer.

In this spiral of rhetoric and recriminations, the murder of 31-year-old Kirk occurred at the hands of a 22-year-old Anglo-Saxon young man from Utah, who according to family and friends had gradually become radicalized.

But by blaming the “radical left” for the death Kirk's death without presenting evidence, the administration and its allies omit the attacks perpetrated against Democrats, such as the Minnesota legislator murdered alongside her husband, and the hammer attack on the husband of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

And how can we forget the deadly assault on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, when a mob tried to prevent the certification of the 2020 presidential election. There were deaths and injuries, including 174 police officers, but those responsible, eventually convicted and imprisoned, received a presidential pardon in January of this year and are called "patriots" and "hostages."

Kirk's death intersects not only the clash of opposing ideas that in some cases trigger violence,but rather the everlasting debate about easy access to guns in a nation that, in fact, has more guns than people.

It also exposes the role of social media in serving as a platform for those who promote rhetoric and lies that a segment of the population believes to be true, with the risk of appealing to individuals who decide to take violent action on their own.

It also highlights the leadership vacuum in the country from the highest levels.

And a leader would call for sanity and calm. But that has not been the case. Rather, Kirk's death is being used as an excuse to redouble attacks against the liberal opposition and the Democrats. And also to justify extreme public policies, as is happening in cities across the country that have become militarized under the pretext of combating crime, especially through indiscriminate raids on immigrants they label as "invaders" and "criminals." In fact, the press reported on plans to "dismantle" leftist institutions for promoting "violence and terrorism." The United States has had a history of violence in various stages. Its expansion was made possible by displacing, dispossessing, and eliminating Indigenous peoples. The Civil War between the South and the North resulted in more deaths than any other armed conflict in which the United States participated. Then there is the treatment of African Americans, first with slavery, then with racial segregation, the political assassinations that marked the bloody struggle for civil rights, the discrimination against Hispanics and other minorities of color, including the exile of Americans of Hispanic origin.

Many of these struggles are still alive today, as we witness today with the indiscriminate deportations and militarization of cities led by African American Democrats.

But the United States also has a history of aspiring to be better. That aspiration has produced advances in civil rights, women's rights, and minority rights. Those same advances are under attack in this new dark chapter of our collective history.

And despite this, the best option is not to add fuel to the fire and to keep as our guiding light that aspiration to be better as individuals, neighbors, and as a country.