There’s been a lot of talk lately about the increasing escalation of political rhetoric.

Political violence is on the rise, and more and more people are talking about intractable conflicts: Left versus Right, friend versus enemy, good versus evil.

Us versus them.

This framing gets something right: there is a conflict at hand. But it’s not about political ideology. “They” are not the other side — “they” are the deeply disturbed, the mentally ill, the radicalized, the lost.

Until we fight that war, no amount of political grandstanding will make a difference.

Consider the assassination of Charlie Kirk. The suspect, Tyler Robinson, is being held in a “special watch” unit pending mental health evaluation. Authorities have publicly noted he is under psychiatric review. Utah Governor Spencer Cox has said the suspect had embraced a “leftist ideology” and had been radicalized in obscure internet circles. Reports have shown engravings on ammunition that reflected such ideological messaging.

All of this is certainly relevant. But the overwhelming majority of ideological individuals don’t assassinate people. The mentally ill do.

Now to Michigan. In Grand Blanc, Thomas Jacob Sanford, a 40-year-old former U.S. Marine, rammed his truck through a Mormon church, shot congregants, then set the building on fire.

Sanford had no established public political affiliations, but neighbors and acquaintances reported he had become “unhinged” in conversations about religion, particularly Mormonism. He had served in Iraq and struggled with personal issues, including drug addiction. Whether PTSD or other mental breakdowns played a role is under investigation, but the signs point to an internal crisis, not a neatly ideological campaign.

Misidentifying “Them” is dangerous. When we frame “Them” as just the ideological other side, we miss key dynamics.

We legitimize ideological martyrdom. If the assassin is “one of them,” then killing becomes another political tactic. We also ignore the root issue: mental collapse. People don’t generally shoot up churches or campuses calmly as ideological strategists. They act in crisis.

Together, that means we fail to intervene early. If we see such violence as purely political, we focus on language policing, speech bans, “cancel culture” fights — not on psychiatric screens, trauma care, intervention, de-radicalization.

We are in a war against the mentally unmoored — those whose pain has metastasized into violence.

This doesn’t mean ideology plays no role; it often provides a language for misery and victimhood. But it is secondary, not primary.

If we get the identity of “Them” wrong, our remedies will be wrong. Here’s what needs to change.

We must begin by putting a meaningful emphasis on psychopathology in threat assessment. Expand training for law enforcement, schools, and mental health agencies to flag people with escalating instability, social withdrawal, expressed violent fantasies, or mental deterioration — before they cross the threshold.

We have to bridge deradicalization and psychiatric care. Many of those who perpetrate violence have some latent level of mental illness but are radicalized online. So, we need hybrid approaches to helping them: ideological counseling plus psychiatric treatment. That means creating safe pathways for families or institutions to intervene before tragedy.

There are also changes we can make to how we talk about politics. Leaders have to de-escalate, stop demonizing opponents, and stop glamorizing violence. Celebrate mental health care, particularly for veterans and other high-risk groups. And speak out about the dangers of social media.

By speaking on all of these subjects, lawmakers and other public figures can raise public awareness and ensure Americans don’t stigmatize, but recognize warning signs. If teachers, pastors, and neighbors are on the lookout for warning signs in people from their communities, they can intervene.

That’s how we win the war against the darkness and violence haunting our country. Let’s stop seeing these things as some inevitable collateral in political warfare, and see it as a crisis of the mind and soul that demands a different kind of fight.

Gates Garcia is the host of the YouTube show and podcast “We The People.” Follow him on Instagram and X @GatesGarciaFL.

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

The White House plans deep cuts to “Democrat agencies” as the government shutdown continues, a terrorist attacks an Orthodox synagogue killing two and wounding more, and Leonardo DiCaprio stars in a new political blockbuster.

It’s Friday, October 3, 2025, and this is the news you need to know to start your day.

Morning Wire is available on video! You can watch today’s episode here:

If you would rather listen to your news, today’s edition of the Morning Wire podcast can be heard below:

Shutdown Day 3

Topline: The government shutdown enters its third day, as the blame game continues and President Donald Trump threatens mass firings of federal employees. 

The GOP strategy: The White House wants to make the shutdown about healthcare funding for illegal immigrants. It says the Democrat proposal would result in $200 billion in subsidies going to non-citizens over the next decade, primarily through Medicaid and mandatory emergency care. The White House argues that the American people elected President Trump to cut those exact policies, and by blocking him from doing so, Democrats are denying the will of the people.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said: “Trump ran on the promise to end taxpayer-funded benefits going to illegal aliens, and tens of millions of Americans voted him back to this beautiful White House to implement that promise … and now Democrats want to undo it — and they’re holding our country hostage.”

The White House says the United States will lose $15 billion in GDP revenue each week the shutdown drags on, and it wants to ensure Democrats bear the blame, posting news clips on social media describing national guardsmen going unpaid, food assistance for low-income single mothers drying up, etc.

Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout! 

A number of federal websites had new banners on Thursday — the official Justice Department homepage, for example, read “Democrats have shut down the government … websites are not currently updated.” 

Trump’s austerity: The president is targeting “non-essential” federal employees for termination as part of his broader government efficiency efforts. He posted on social media that he “had a meeting today with Russ Vought, he of PROJECT 2025 Fame, to determine which of the many Democrat Agencies, most of which are a political SCAM, he recommends to be cut … I can’t believe the Radical Left Democrats gave me this unprecedented opportunity.”

Yom Kippur Synagogue Attack

Topline: A knife-wielding man targeted a synagogue in Manchester, England, on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar.

The U.K.’s counterterrorism police have deemed the attack a “terrorist incident.”

Timeline: Authorities first received calls at around 9:30 a.m. local time about a man driving his vehicle into pedestrians outside the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation synagogue. The suspect, identified as Jihad al-Shamie, a 35-year-old British citizen who is of Syrian descent, then got out of his vehicle and began stabbing people around him. Authorities have confirmed that two people have been killed and four others were injured.

The suspect was shot and killed by police about 7-8 minutes after authorities were first called. 

The attack: The terrorist was not able to enter the actual synagogue because the entrance was locked and barricaded. When he exited the vehicle, he immediately encountered synagogue security and other members who stopped him.

Step back: About 30,000 Jewish people reside in Manchester – outside of London, it’s home to the largest Jewish community in the country. Antisemitic incidents in the U.K. have hit record levels after the October 7th attack by Hamas in Israel. In the first half of this year alone, there have been more than 1,500 reported incidents.

“One Battle After Another”

Topline: A new film by celebrated director Paul Thomas Anderson starring Leonardo DiCaprio is earning high praise from critics and solid numbers at the box office – but it’s also stirring up debate about its potentially polarizing political themes.

National Review contributor Giancarlo Sopo joined Morning Wire to discuss the film, “One Battle After Another.”

What is the film about? “I think to understand ‘One Battle After Another,’ you have to understand the book that it’s based on, and it’s Thomas Pynchon’s ‘Vineland.’ Essentially, it’s a story about a bunch of radicals who have gotten burned out, have attempted to attack government installations and institutions using violence. Now they are being hunted. So, it’s a satire, right? You’ve got radicals on one side, and then on the right, you’re going to have a bunch of racist, autocratic thugs, essentially, coming after them who are part of this paramilitary organization that is also tied, by the way, to a secret society of races called the Christmas Adventurers Club.”

Is it a political movie? “I think the film’s political sympathies are obviously with the progressive left. At the same time, though, I wouldn’t necessarily call it a political movie. I would look at it more as Antifa Star Wars, as a friend told me, where the politics and the radicalism is kind of used as a vehicle to tell a father-daughter story. You have this burned-out dad who spends all day smoking weed and watching ‘The Battle Of Algiers,’ bringing up a young daughter, who’s a teenager now, entirely by himself. And he’s having a hard time communicating with her. There are very funny, generational conflicts as tends to happen to those who have kids now are starting to figure that out.”

Is there any sympathy for people considered to be on the right in the film? “The thing with the movie is that no one’s really in the center, right? Or really the center left or much less the middle. It follows a set of extremists on both sides. And what the story is telling you on the political side is that these ideologies are pulling people away from what matters most to them in life, which should be their own children. There are very clear passages in the film that communicate that. I don’t think anyone is portrayed here sympathetically in the film, to be candid with you, with the exception of the teenage girl.”