Minnesota Republican responds to uptick in extreme political views, violence following lawmaker shootings
Go Deeper.
Create an account or log in to save stories.
Like this?
Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.
The man accused of murdering former DFL House Leader Melissa Hortman and her husband and the attempted murder of State Sen. John Hoffman and his wife makes another appearance in court this week.
As the community grieves, it’s also raising questions about Vance Boelter’s alleged politically motivated attacks and theorizing solutions to dial back the vitriol that can lead to political violence.
At the Hortmans’ funeral Saturday, Gov. Tim Walz said in his eulogy “maybe it is this moment where each of us can examine the way we work together, the way we talk about each other, the way we fight for things we care about — a moment when each of us can recommit to engaging in politics and life the way Mark and Melissa did.”
Republican state Rep. Walter Hudson of Albertville — while earning a reputation as a rabble-rouser and willing to frequently engage in debates on social media — has turned to the same platforms to quell falsehoods in the wake of the Hortmans' killings. For instance, he and his GOP colleague Rep. Harry Niska both posted on X decrying Boelter’s statements that Walz told him to kill Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar.
Turn Up Your Support
MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all.
Hudson joined MPR News host Cathy Wurzer for an interview on Morning Edition Tuesday to talk about political polarization and violence.
The following has been lightly edited for clarity and length. Listen to the conversation by clicking the above player button.
Are these reflections on reining in divisive political rhetoric an inflection point or a short truce?
I think those are two separate questions. So it definitely is an inflection point. What needs to happen, though, is figuring out how to have the fight in a way that precludes even the hint of things escalating to physical violence or physical confrontation.
In the past, you have thrown some sharp elbows. You've called Democrats ‘demons.’ Do you regret that?
I do because it was directed at the person as opposed to the policy. And the fact of the matter is, I've got family members who vote Democrat. I've got friends who are liberals, and it's not a monolith. We argue within our tribes. The loudest voices tend to be the ones that have the most extreme viewpoints. And just because so-and-so says something nutty on their side of the aisle doesn't mean that everybody on that side conducts themselves in the same way or shares that same view.
It seems that your social media followers aren’t giving you any grace regarding your comments on the Hortmans’ murder.
No, and look, I can understand where they're coming from, because they are not as personally attached to it as I am, as somebody who knew her as a human being. Also, as someone who works at the Capitol and has to fear for the safety of my own family and my colleagues and their families.
For a lot of folks, politics is their entertainment. It's like sports, and just like you get the fans in the seats with makeup and outlandish costumes and signs, you get an analogous sort of participant or activist in the political world, where, for them, it's about the fun of rabble rousing. And so those lines get blurred in terms of who's serious and who's not, who's just here to have fun, and who's actually committed to the process of governing, listening and developing solutions to problems.
We've had political violence in this country since its inception, but what fosters the dehumanization of someone's opponent?
What I think it comes down to is that the breadth of the political spectrum has expanded so far. And what I mean by that is, if you go back in time, say to JFK or Richard Nixon, even though they were opposed to each other and were for different political parties and were running parties and were running against each other, I believe if you look at the Venn diagram of their individual beliefs, there was significantly more overlap back then, than there is between the two sides today, generally speaking.
But there's another dimension to that chart. Most people are somewhere in the middle, but they tend to be the least vocal, the least active. They don't want to participate because they see the spectacle that goes on between the two sides, the two extremes. Most people are conflict-averse. They're risk-averse.
Both political parties are really focused on those who are at the extremes.
That's the other problem: the more nuanced you are, the more grace you show, the more quarter you give, the more reasonable, the more willing to govern, the more you're hated by your own side.
Can you see yourself calling out a fellow Republican?
Yes, but I would probably do it privately. Policing our own doesn't have to be this public shaming. And in fact, I think it isn’t [necessarily effective] that way. It's kind of like when you're dealing with a family member, you're not saying, “you're not my son anymore.” You're saying, “this is not what our family does. This is not how we behave.” The overriding theme of all this is how you say it is more important than what you're saying.
