On October 21, Alec Baldwin fired a gun on the set of the movie “Rust” and mistakenly killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. The gun was declared “cold” before it was fired, leaving the crew members shocked in the aftermath of Hutchins’ death. An investigation is still underway as the friends and family of 42-year-old Hutchins mourn her loss.
Baldwin has since made an appearance in which he stressed, “She was my friend. She was my friend.” In an official Tweet, he states, “There are no words to convey my shock and sadness regarding the tragic accident that took the life of Halyna Hutchins . . . My heart is broken for her husband, their son, and all who knew and loved Halyna.” His wife Hilaria has likewise expressed remorse, in addition to highlighting her husband’s grief as a result of the incident. In an Instagram post on October 30, she shared a picture holding her husband’s hand with the caption, “I love you and I’m here.”
Baldwin’s shooting has provoked antagonistic responses from those who oppose his political views. He has formerly expressed discontent with the National Rifle Association (NRA), which sparked controversy from conservatives. In 2018, Baldwin tagged the NRA spokesperson in a Tweet that said, “The Second Amendment is not a moral credit card that buys you all the guns you want. That law needs to be rethought.” Statements like this combined with his fatal accident have created the perfect storm for his ideological opponents to attack him.
In light of the incident, Donald Trump Jr. has begun selling shirts that say “Guns don’t kill people, Alec Baldwin does.” This is a parody of the common phrase “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” which is typically used by those who oppose gun control. For Trump Jr., this merchandise serves a multifaceted role: he can ridicule Baldwin, who infamously parodied his father Donald Trump on “Saturday Night Live,” while also furthering his own political beliefs. He also reaps financial profit from those who already agree with him.
Considering Baldwin’s outspoken remorse and the grief of Halyna’s loved ones, twisting the situation for political and monetary gain seems particularly insensitive. This behavior marks an instance where political alliances have resulted in cruel behavior that discounts the humanity of one’s ideological opponents. Importantly, this behavior is not unique to Republicans–citizens on both sides of the aisle have arguably contributed to the degradation of our political discourse. And the state in which it currently stands is tragic.
I realize that the phrase “both sides” reflects a notoriously controversial angle. To be perfectly clear, this is not intended as an argument for political neutrality. It is imperative that people determine their own views based on critical thinking rather than walk an indecisive tightrope. It also does not mean that all parties are equal in their shortcomings and inadequacies. Instead, my point in calling out both groups is that there are ways that we could all learn to better communicate with each other. Furthermore, there are instances where we must be kinder to each other if we are to arrive anywhere good in the next several years. This issue is particularly relevant as fragmented, emotionally-charged battles break out each week across social media–ones where people often seem to forget that they are speaking to other humans.
Rather than recount several instances of political incivility in America, I think it is critical that we pay attention to the roots of our political views. As Gregory Brown and Mitchel Moffit note in a fascinating video on the biology of politics, studies suggest that liberals are more likely to have a larger anterior cingulate cortex, which is associated with the ability to control and manage uncomfortable emotions. Conversely, conservatives tend to have larger amygdalas, which aid in processing fear and threatening stimuli. This data is likewise discussed in “Scientific American.”
Brown and Moffit suggest that biological trends may explain why liberals and conservatives tend to see the world in such diametrically opposed ways. They state, “in a world that’s being increasingly characterized by its divisions, perhaps an important aspect of unity involves using neuroscience to better understand each other’s differences.” Indeed, considering the role of biology on our views may be a useful avenue for comprehending our varying perspectives.
In addition to the potential role of biology in influencing one’s views, another fundamental factor is the way that they are raised. As Christopher Ojeda and Peter K. Hatemi note in the “American Sociological Review,” the majority of children align themselves with whatever political party they think their parents are a part of. Sometimes this characterization is incorrect, but most children align themselves with what they perceive to be their parents’ political beliefs. This underscores the idea that respect and loyalty for one’s parents is another crucial, influencing factor.
One other fundamental trend in politics is that people tend to remain in the party that they register for when they are 18. As Ethan Kaplan and Sharun Makund state in an empirical study of voting data, “taking a political position such as a decision to register (or not register) for a political party, can in and of itself be a critical determinant of future political identity.” Furthermore, they state that the 9/11 attacks caused over 2% more of new Californian voters to register for the Republican party. This research further contributes to the list of potential factors–biological, familial, and environmental–that often affect a person’s political view.
So what is the significance of this data, and how does it relate to political civility? Does it mean that we should attribute everyone’s politics to factors that are outside of their control or conscious perception? I don’t think so. It does mean that our political allegiances are often more nuanced than we like to admit. It is common in today’s society to label those on the other side of the spectrum as evil, vile, and immoral–which is what gives people like Trump Jr. the motivation to use a fatal shooting for profit. In reality, most people do not wake up in the morning and think “what is the most negative, selfish way that I can influence the world.” We support what we think is right based on the values that were instilled in us as children. We follow our biological and social inclinations. Sometimes these positions are incorrect, and sometimes they are not–and it is our duty to set aside our egos, to critically think, and to make the most informed decisions that we can.
Ultimately, it is imperative that we recognize the unique combination of biological, social, and external factors that may affect our outlook on the world. We should take care to remember this when we are inclined to attack one another–when we are moved to insult peoples’ families, their character, and their livelihood. We should remember it when tempted to take advantage of tragedy for political gain. Most of all, we should remember it in order to retain our humanity in every interaction that we have with those around us.
The Student Movement is the official student newspaper of Andrews University. Opinions expressed in the Student Movement are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors, Andrews University or the Seventh-day Adventist church.