New Jerseyans aren’t always civil, but it’s still possible for a liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican to have a rational and pleasant conversation about politics in the state. Dan Bryan is a former senior advisor to Gov. Phil Murphy and is now the owner of his own public affairs firm, and Alex Wilkes is an attorney and former executive director of America Rising PAC who advises Republican candidates in New Jersey and across the nation, including the New Jersey GOP. Dan and Alex are both experienced strategists who are currently in the room where high-level decisions are made. They will get together weekly with New Jersey Globe editor David Wildstein – or, this week, with New Jersey Globe Washington reporter Joey Fox – to discuss politics and issues.
New Jersey Globe: Charlie Kirk’s shocking assassination last week was the latest in a long line of attacks on politicians and public figures like Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman and, a few years ago, New Jersey federal judge Esther Salas. People consistently say in the wake of these attacks that we need to turn down the temperature of politics and remember the humanity of the other side – but what does that look like in practice? How, in an era when both parties see the other as an existential threat, do we put political violence clearly out of bounds?
Dan Bryan: Charlie Kirk’s murder was a heartbreaking tragedy. Seeing pictures of Kirk with his young daughters, now growing up without a father, broke my heart. I can only imagine the suffering of his family and friends over these past few days, and my thoughts and prayers are with them as they grieve.
Let’s start here: social media is divisive and cancerous. I’m prone to endless doomscrolling at a time like this, and I was again reminded what a cesspool X and Facebook have become. The hottest, most divisive takes are promoted to all, while cool-headed reasonable voices are suppressed. Multiple people went through hell as the internet’s suspect of the moment, ruining their lives and terrifying their unsuspecting families. Social media was supposed to bring us closer together; instead, it’s tearing apart the fabric of our shared society.
Here’s a tip on how to spot bad actors, by the way: they used terms like “they” to assign blame for Kirk’s murder to a broad group of people, rather than waiting to see what the facts of the situation were. These are people that benefit directly from inciting division and anger. Unfortunately, we saw our President do the same thing.
We cannot hate our opponents more than we value who we are as Americans, living in a free and democratic society. We simply can’t. We won’t continue to function. That doesn’t mean both sides share blame equally, and it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t stand up for what we believe in. But if we continue to allow ourselves to be divided by those profiting off of it (and that list is long), we’ll continue down the dark path we’re on today.
As Americans, we still have one ultimate tool for reform: the ballot box. Stop voting for candidates that promote hate, divisiveness, and anger. Stop rewarding those that see their fellow human beings (all of them) as anything less than they are. Start rewarding politicians that know how to disagree respectfully and fight for their principles in a way that is constructive rather than destructive.
And more than anything else, let’s all stop rotting our brains on social media and cable news channels. Let’s recalibrate our news consumption away from endless grandstanding and toxic punditry. Let’s reward constructive conversations and those of us that bring us together with a message of unity.
Alex Wilkes: For me, the 24th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks served as a grim reminder not only of the unthinkable loss of life our country suffered that day, but also of the beginning of a dark turn for our country. Speaking from the viewpoint of a millennial, that day shattered our innocence at a formative age and then was followed by a series of other mind-bending events: two deadly wars that defined and forever changed a generation; a financial crisis that shattered the fortunes of ordinary Americans; toxic, increasingly divisive elections from 2012 forward; school shootings that are more gruesome than the last; a global pandemic paired with lockdown measures that are proving to be deadlier than the virus itself; a massacre of Jews on October 7th, and two assassination attempts on a former President in the 2024 election.
I say all of that because as angry as our country is, we are also exhausted and weary. When friends texted me that Charlie Kirk had been shot, I immediately – like everyone else – took to X to find out any information I could, praying that reports had been incorrect or overstated. Instead, I saw videos that I wish I could obliterate from my memory: a close up view of a jugular shot that took away Charlie’s most “dangerous” asset – his voice.
I shared meals with Charlie when I worked in youth politics in D.C. He was someone with whom I had once exchanged nervous small talk behind stage before we both prepared to speak at the RNC Convention in 2016. The proper response to watching a video of him being murdered – even if I didn’t know him – is to vomit or scream. Instead, I felt numb, feeding my children dinner, privately mourning for the parents who had lost a son and the wife and children who would never again have a meal with him. It felt like a far cry from the endless tears I shed after Sandy Hook or even 9/11 itself. I don’t think that’s a result of me getting older, but rather of the cumulative stress of the massive social unrest we have endured for a quarter of a century.
Still, as we approach our country’s 250th anniversary, my heart is still hopeful for Ronald Reagan’s vision of America as the exceptional Shining City on the Hill. I think that’s what Charlie would’ve believed as well.
We do need to find a way to bring our country back to a more peaceful place. I don’t think there’s one policy prescription that gets us there, but I do know that we don’t solve this by marginalizing the role of faith and families in our lives. America is – and should always be – a safe haven for people who want neither, but I don’t think it’s debatable that when society has something bigger than themselves to believe in and strong family units, you see less mental illness, less crime, greater wealth, and less stratification among social classes.
Our Republic has endured horrible chasms and tragic events (albeit without the added stressors of 4K video and 24/7 news) before. Have faith: there is still hope for America yet.
State senator Doug Steinhardt says he’ll be introducing a bill to classify political violence as a hate crime. Do you think he’s on the right track? Beyond obvious things like increased security measures, what role can New Jersey play in combating violence like this?
Alex: I think 3 things:
1. I have great respect for Senator Steinhardt.
2. I have a deep distrust of hate laws meant to criminalize bad thoughts instead of bad acts.
3. BUT, to the extent the existing laws do not reflect my values and have no chance of being repealed, I offer a tepid endorsement of this addition.
I’m also not one to advocate for spending more taxpayer dollars, but to ensure the preservation of democracy in our state during these trying times, I think enhanced state police protection of high profile political figures – particularly those that receive credible threats of imminent harm – should be considered.
Dan: I share Alex’s healthy skepticism here.
I think Senator Steinhart’s efforts to fight against political violence are commendable, and I hope this is just the beginning of the conversation. But I have a number of honest questions: what problem are we solving with this legislation? Let’s look at the people that commit these heinous crimes. Would mandatory minimums have really acted as a preventative measure with the people that shot at President Trump, attacked Paul Pelosi, killed Charlie Kirk, or killed Melissa Hortman and her husband? They were all clearly mentally ill – it’s hard to believe any of them were weighing the legal consequences of their actions. And for that matter, none of the perpetrators have gotten off lightly, so why are mandatory minimums needed?
I’m not against this, per se. And I’m certainly not an expert in criminal justice. But color me skeptical.
I am really glad Senator Steinhart is engaging in the fight against political violence, and I hope elected officials of both sides come together to see what can be done.
Nadine Menendez, right before getting sentenced to four-and-a-half years in prison yesterday, said that her husband Bob strung her along “like a puppet” during their yearslong corruption scheme. Bob’s lawyers said much the same thing of Nadine during his trial. What do you make of their his-and-hers defense arguments that the other was to blame?
Dan: I hate seeing a love story without a happy ending. It’s especially sad when it’s a couple that shares so many of the same hobbies. If those two crazy kids can’t make it, who can?
Joking aside, they are both adults, and they both traded on our country’s national security to personally enrich themselves. I’m not surprised that they’re both still trying to avoid responsibility for their actions. I hope they both find peace.
Alex: Just a display of a dysfunctional marriage that went far beyond whose turn it was to take out the trash and revealed the extreme lengths to which narcissists will go to protect themselves.
Side note: thank you to Mr. Wilkes, who always takes out our trash. In return, I promise to never ask him to sell his integrity for a luxury vehicle.
We’re now on Week 15 of the New Jersey governor’s race. Who won the week, Mikie Sherrill or Jack Ciattarelli? (Bonus points if you say anything positive about the other side’s candidate.)
Alex: Jack continues to have a steady drumbeat of good news from polls showing him narrowing the race to low single digits to the announcement of the RGA coming in to spend money on his behalf.
Mikie, on the other hand, is forcing the DNC to spend money they do not have and showing little return for it. Under the right circumstances, the law of diminishing returns definitely applies to Democrats in this state when all the Queen’s horses and all the Queen’s men have trouble putting back together their broken policies again.
The high school overachiever in me can’t resist Joey’s extra credit, so I will say that I was heartened to see Mikie’s condemnation of the political violence that marred our country this week. That feels like a pretty low bar, but I want my points, Joey.
Dan: Since we’ve been off for a few weeks, I’ll go back to the ad releases from earlier this month. This is a paid media campaign from this point on – everything else is window dressing.
Mikie’s ad was a strong, bio-driven ad that touts her agenda for working families in our state. Like her primary ads, it’s clear, focused, and well executed.
Jack’s ad felt tired. Really, another diner ad? It felt like political white noise. And it started on the defensive, trying to inoculate him against his servile stance toward President Trump. He looked great in the ad, and he comes across well. But it didn’t seem to do enough work for him.
But to me, the real news was the IE-promoted negative ad against Jack. It is devastating. We got another example of a Republican candidate making the mistake of being *too* honest about his views on the campaign trail, with Jack Ciattarelli fantasizing about eliminating the income tax and raising sales tax on New Jersey.
His defense is that he was innocently pointing out that Tennessee does it that way, but any honest read of his comments would conclude that he brought Tennessee up as an example of how New Jersey could structure its tax system. It was a big mistake, and it gave the Sherrill team the upper hand on taxes down the stretch.
