A Senator Memes Assassination. How Does Someone Lose All Compassion?
Over the weekend, while a gunman who had just assassinated Democratic lawmakers remained at large and armed, Senator Mike Lee of Utah took to social media to exploit the violence. His posts weren't expressions of shock or calls for justice—they were attempts to weaponize political murder for partisan advantage. In that moment, Lee crossed a line that reveals something profound and troubling about assaults on democratic norms: they don't just come from extremists, but from the moral collapse of those sworn to defend democratic institutions.
What Happened
Early Saturday morning, June 14, 2025, a gunman systematically targeted Democratic lawmakers at their homes near Minneapolis. State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark were killed, while State Senator John Hoffman and his wife Yvette were wounded in targeted shootings at their homes, according to NPR. While hundreds of law enforcement officers conducted what officials called "the largest manhunt in Minnesota's history," Senator Mike Lee of Utah responded in a way that defied every expectation of how elected officials react to political violence.
Lee didn't condemn the attacks. He didn't express sympathy for the victims. He didn't call for justice or unity. Nor did he have the decency to remain silent. Instead, while the killer remained at large, Lee took to social media to craft political messaging from the tragedy. "This is what happens...When Marxists don't get their way," he posted on X, sharing an image of the masked killer. Another post showed surveillance footage of the gunman at a victim's door moments before the shooting, captioned "Nightmare on Waltz Street"—a macabre play on Governor Tim Walz's name.
The narrative Lee promoted was false. The suspect's roommate told reporters that the alleged gunman was a "strong Trump supporter," and public records show he and his wife were registered Republicans in Oklahoma, according to The Daily Beast. Lee was promoting a false narrative that contradicted the available evidence about the gunman's motivations.
The human response to political assassination is horror, empathy, and solidarity with fellow public servants who risk their lives in democratic service. Lee's response was different - he treated the murders as an opportunity for partisan messaging. While families grieved and communities processed the tragedy, Lee was creating social media content. While other lawmakers—Republican and Democrat alike—expressed shock and called for unity, Lee was using the violence for his online audience.
This represents a staggering transformation for Lee personally. Less than a decade ago, he endorsed Evan McMullin—the conservative independent who ran against Trump in 2016—showing he once put constitutional principles above party loyalty. As one critic noted, Lee was "brokenhearted about Trump winning the nomination in 2016 and voted for Evan McMullin but now here you are mimicking the lamest incel MAGA trolls". The question that haunts observers is both simple and terrifying: how does a person lose their humanity so completely?
How People Lose Their Humanity
History offers sobering lessons about how ordinary people can contribute to harmful acts during periods of political upheaval. In Nazi Germany, respected academics who had once debated philosophy became propagandists justifying genocide. In Rwanda, neighbors who had shared meals turned into participants in massacre. In Stalin's Soviet Union, party officials competed to demonstrate loyalty by applauding the purges that might claim them next. The pattern is consistent across authoritarian movements: moral collapse doesn't happen overnight, but through a series of small compromises that gradually erode the human capacity for empathy and decency.
The psychological mechanisms are well-documented by scholars of authoritarianism. First comes dehumanization—political opponents become enemies, then subhuman threats that deserve whatever violence befalls them. Tribal loyalty begins to override individual conscience as group membership becomes more valuable than moral principles. Social media amplifies these dynamics by creating echo chambers where contributing to cruelty generates applause rather than horror, inverting normal moral feedback loops.
In Trump's movement, expressions of basic human decency can be viewed as weakness. Supporters openly mock Democrats as "snowflakes" and boast about drinking "liberals' tears." Within this culture, showing humanity—expressing horror at political assassination—risks being seen as soft or disloyal.
Perhaps most insidiously, authoritarian movements create competitive loyalty displays where public figures must continually prove their devotion to the cause. In Stalin's regime, officials competed to demonstrate their revolutionary fervor by denouncing colleagues with increasing enthusiasm. In Nazi Germany, party members vied to show their commitment through ever-more extreme rhetoric and actions. The fear of appearing insufficiently loyal drives people to abandon positions they once held sacred.
Lee's posts show how social media can reward extreme behavior with engagement and tribal validation, creating feedback loops where outrageous statements generate more attention than measured responses.
Lee's transformation follows this historical pattern with troubling precision. The man who once endorsed a principled conservative alternative to Trump has become someone who exploits political assassinations for social media content. The progression reveals how democratic institutions can be weakened when their own guardians abandon the norms that sustain them.
Why This Breaks Every Norm
The Constitution Lee swore to uphold envisions elected officials as guardians of democratic discourse, not exploiters of political violence. Article I establishes Congress as a deliberative body where conflicts are resolved through debate and voting, not assassination. The founders, despite their fierce disagreements, maintained what Alexander Hamilton called "the sacred fire of liberty"—a shared commitment to settling disputes through democratic processes rather than bloodshed. When Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in their famous duel, it effectively ended Burr's political career because even in 1804, Americans understood that political violence was incompatible with democratic governance.
American political tradition, even in its darkest moments, has maintained certain boundaries around violence against elected officials. These aren't just customs—they're the foundational agreements that make democracy possible. When Representative Steve Scalise was shot by a Bernie Sanders supporter in 2017, Democratic leaders universally condemned the attack. After attempts on President Trump's life, Democrats expressed relief at his safety. This wasn't performative courtesy—it reflected a foundational understanding that political violence destroys the very system that gives legitimacy to democratic opposition.
The professional ethics for elected officials, enshrined in oath requirements and congressional rules, demand basic respect for the institutions they serve and the colleagues who share that service. Lee's Senate oath bound him to "support and defend the Constitution" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to democratic governance. That oath assumes a baseline of human decency—that senators will not weaponize the murder of their colleagues for partisan advantage. When Lee posted surveillance footage of a masked killer stalking his victims, he didn't just violate political norms; he abandoned the fundamental humanity that democratic service requires.
Congressional rules of decorum, developed over centuries, recognize that democratic debate depends on mutual respect between opposing sides. Senators may disagree fiercely on policy, but they traditionally refer to each other as "the distinguished senator" or "my esteemed colleague" precisely because personal attacks undermine the legitimacy of the institution itself. Lee's exploitation of political assassination obliterates these norms entirely, replacing collegial disagreement with the weaponization of murder.
Why This Damages Democracy
Lee's response signals something more dangerous than individual moral failure—it demonstrates how democratic institutions can be damaged from within when their own guardians abandon foundational norms. When elected officials exploit violence against their colleagues, they don't just normalize political assassination; they erode the basic agreements that make democratic governance possible.
The impact ripples through every level of democratic society. Local officials across the country, already facing unprecedented threats and harassment, now see that violence against them will be weaponized rather than condemned by national leaders. Citizens lose faith in democratic processes when they witness senators using political murder for social media content. The social contract that holds democracy together—the shared agreement that we resolve disputes through democratic processes rather than violence—weakens when those entrusted with upholding it instead exploit breakdowns for partisan purposes.
The psychological mechanics are particularly insidious. Lee's posts demonstrate the attention-seeking behavior that social media rewards: each outrageous statement generates more engagement, more tribal validation, more proof of loyalty to the cause. The dopamine hit of going viral becomes addictive, creating a feedback loop where humanity becomes a liability and cruelty becomes currency. Those who refuse to participate risk being branded as traitors to the movement, potentially becoming targets themselves.
Lee's response shows how elected officials can abandon basic decency when it conflicts with perceived political advantage. This erosion of norms by those meant to uphold them poses risks to democratic institutions.
Lessons from "On Tyranny"
Lee's exploitation of political assassination illuminates multiple warnings from Timothy Snyder's "On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century," his essential guide to recognizing and resisting authoritarianism. More importantly, it shows us exactly how to resist this moral contagion in our own lives and communities.
Lesson 1: "Do not obey in advance." Lee didn't wait for orders to exploit political violence—he rushed to demonstrate his loyalty through cruelty. The antidote is refusing to spread hateful or dehumanizing information about those we disagree with, even when our political tribe rewards it. Every time we resist that impulse, we prove that "everyone does it" isn't inevitable.
Lesson 2: "Defend institutions." When senators exploit the assassination of their colleagues, we must actively protect public servants and the institutions they serve. This means speaking up for democratic norms even when—especially when—our own side abandons them.
Lesson 4: "Take responsibility for the face of the world." Lee's posts thrive on attention and engagement. The most powerful response is to starve them of oxygen—do not like, share, or comment on inhumane posts. Let them die of abandonment while amplifying voices that maintain human decency.
Lesson 9: "Be kind to our language." Refuse to use words of ugliness, hate, or dehumanization, even when political movements demand it as proof of loyalty. The language we choose shapes the world we create.
Lesson 10: "Believe in truth." Don't let false narratives about political violence distract from the fundamental truth: when senators exploit assassination for partisan advantage, democracy itself is under attack.
Lesson 12: "Make eye contact and small talk." Be wildly human in your community. Engage with others across political divides. The antidote to dehumanization is relentless humanity.
Lesson 13: "Practice corporeal politics." Do not be chilled by this moment. Do not let the abandonment of decency by political leaders deprive you of your democracy or the democracy your children will inherit.
When senators exploit political assassination for social media content, they reveal how far democratic norms have eroded. But they also show us exactly what we must resist: the gradual abandonment of humanity that makes democratic discourse impossible. The choice before each of us is simple and profound: will we maintain our humanity even when political movements reward us for abandoning it? How we answer that question will shape the future of American democratic culture.
Take Action
1. Exercise Your Democratic Rights Do not be chilled by this erosion of norms. Continue to exercise your right to free speech and to peacefully protest. Your participation in democratic processes is essential to maintaining healthy institutions.
2. Share Responsibly Online Be intentional about your social media engagement:
Share content that promotes thoughtful discourse rather than inflammatory rhetoric
Comment constructively on posts that advance understanding
Like and amplify voices that maintain human decency
Do not engage with hate and inhumane rhetoric—starve it of the attention it seeks
3. Contact Your Representatives Let your public officials know you find actions like Senator Lee's an affront to democracy. Key talking points:
Elected officials have a responsibility to condemn political violence, not exploit it for partisan gain
Using assassination for social media content undermines the basic respect required for democratic institutions to function
Citizens expect their representatives to model human decency, especially during tragedies that affect fellow public servants
