It’s no exaggeration to say that we are in a moment of national confusion over how to react properly to the horror of Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Somehow this particular shooting has prompted more widespread, if not deeper, angst than any other shooting in recent times. There’s a yearning throughout most of the nation for some solution, but the solutions offered are uniformly misconceived and will be ineffective.

First, let’s look at some headlines in reaction to Kirk’s death:

• Left-Wing Radicalism Is Staring Us In The Face
• Don’t Let Kirk’s Killing Become Trump’s Reichstag Fire
• Stop Left-Wing Terror Networks and Their Funding
• MAGA Vows to Silence Foes
• Trump Invokes Kirk’s Killing in Justifying Measures to Silence Opponents on the Left
• Report those who celebrate Charlie Kirk’s death to employers
• It Doesn’t Stop Until The Power Of The State Is Used To Deconstruct Left-Wing Terror Networks

Political figures and political media across the entire spectrum are decrying political violence, but when addressing what to do about it, they typically blame the other side, and suggest that some kind of government power – executive, legislative or judicial – should be exercised to bring an end to it. Unworkable and sophomoric distinctions between free speech and hate speech are offered as helpful in deciding what’s permissible speech and what’s impermissible, as if there were some kind of discernable line between the two that is intuitively obvious. There is no such line, which basically means that there is no such distinction.

Why is any form of speech protected by the First Amendment? There’s no need for protection of innocuous speech. It’s only offensive speech that needs protection. Even trying to single out speech inciting violence is an arbitrary and ultimately futile task, although there have been some court rulings that try to do it. So let me suggest an entirely different approach: social leadership. Our society can make certain kinds of speech anathema, which is to say utterly unacceptable by the vast majority of our society. It’s an ever-changing and evolving standard, to be sure, but its imprecision doesn’t render it ineffective.  Here are a few examples. When I was growing up sixty or so years ago, it was considered impolite but not uncommon to hear and use slang that demeaned races, ethnicities and sexual orientation. There was even an immigration law enforcement initiative in the 1950’s created by the head of the US Immigration and Naturalization Service called Operation Wetback. Now, such words are considered so offensive that they are effectively banned by society without any law, executive action or court decision mandating it.

I’m from Pennsylvania, where we have a substantial Amish population, and the Amish culture offers us an example of how society can ban something without ever needing to define it legally. The practice is called “shunning.”  It is the Amish equivalent of excommunication, but societal as well as ecclesiastical. While it bears some similarity to the modern phenomenon known as “cancel culture,” it is more thoughtful and more socially significant.

Civic dialogue should be public conversation and exchange of ideas on societal issues to foster understanding, collaboration, and collective problem-solving. It should open communication among diverse groups to address common concerns and find inclusive solutions. The goal of civic dialogue is therefore to build trust, strengthen community bonds, and promote a more engaged and democratic society. That should be our national goal in honor of Charlie Kirk.

The way to tone down the rhetoric in American political debate and discussion is to focus on civility as a necessary element of civic dialogue. It requires honest, strong, nonpartisan and non-ideological leadership. It cannot be accomplished by one person, or one party, or one social group.  There must be a multiplicity of leaders who figuratively speak the same language. The recent appearance of my two Pennsylvania Senators on the Common Ground segment of Fox News Channel’s Special Report is a good example, but of course it needs to be duplicated by hundreds if not thousands of other leaders, both within and outside of politics. It would be best if it could be initiated by the highest office in the land. Nothing else will turn this inflection point into genuine renewal of American society. But it can happen.  Every American can help make it happen.