The U.S. Capitol lacks a thermostat, which makes it challenging to chill tensions in Congress following the assassination of Charlie Kirk. A veteran congressional reporter highlights a recurring theme: attempts to cool political temperatures often prove temporary. After major tragedies, congressional leaders may momentarily find a degree of calm, but soon the political storm system disrupts the peace.
This is not the first time the Capitol has faced rising tensions after a national tragedy. Take, for example, the response to the tragic deaths of two Capitol Police officers in 1998. Lawmakers attempted to bring down the temperature, yet it was not long before conflicts resurfaced. Similarly, the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks brought a fleeting moment of unity, as bipartisan members sang “God Bless America” on the Capitol steps. Yet, just as quickly, political discord returned.
Throughout recent history, the Capitol’s climate has swung from calm to chaos. The fierce debates surrounding initiatives like Obamacare in 2010 ignited protests that once again highlighted these divisions. Phone lines flooded with threats, and members of Congress called for an end to the unrest. Unfortunately, the call for calm met with resistance, as political temperatures quickly rose once more.
The devastating shooting of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in 2011 similarly sparked demands for civility and peace. Lawmakers sought to dial back the heated rhetoric following such violence. However, like previous instances, the temperature in Congress climbed once again shortly thereafter, as escalated rhetoric continued to fuel the cycle.
Consider the 2017 baseball practice shooting, which struck a raw nerve among lawmakers. With the reality of violence looming, a temporary dip in hostility was observed. But again, that calm did not last. The Jan. 6 insurrection stands as a stark example of how quickly tensions can ignite. As the dust settled, leaders called for order in a chamber still reeling from chaos.
Now, amid the aftermath of Kirk’s assassination, House Speaker Mike Johnson finds himself in a familiar position. Members gathered in silence, which soon turned into contention over congressional decorum. Rep. Lauren Boebert prompted an outcry for a verbal prayer. Members exchanged heated words, illustrating the fractious atmosphere. Johnson’s attempts to restore order were met with a chorus of dissent that filled the chamber.
This cyclical pattern in Congress raises questions about the prospects for true change. Each previous tragedy seemed like a prime opportunity for a new approach, yet nothing has fundamentally shifted. The turnover among lawmakers has only exacerbated the issue, leaving behind a landscape riddled with mistrust and tempers flaring anew.
Although there are calls for peace from leadership, the reality of Capitol Hill suggests otherwise. With a significant number of lawmakers opting to retire this term, the possibility of cultivating a more stable environment appears grim. Many voices that could advocate for calm have already left the building, replaced by a new set of individuals unburdened by the lessons learned from past crises.
Congressional leaders can potentially act as their own thermostats, setting the internal temperature to foster a healthier environment. But the question remains: how long can this active regulation last before the heat returns? The answer is likely known to many: the rising temperature of political discourse seems built into the fabric of Capitol Hill.
"*" indicates required fields
