Reflections After The Assassination Of Charlie Kirk
David French wrote well…
“God help us.
On Wednesday, I watched some of the worst footage I’ve seen in my life. An assassin’s bullet cut down Charlie Kirk, one of the nation’s most prominent conservative activists and commentators, at a public event on the campus of Utah Valley University.
Kirk was a husband and the father of two small children. He was also a hero to countless conservative college students. And now he’s gone.
Kirk might have been the most successful conservative political personality in America not named Donald Trump. He helped found Turning Point USA in 2012 and built it into the most influential conservative youth organization in the United States.
And that was only one part of Kirk’s empire. He put together a vast get-out-the-vote operation for the 2024 election. He hosted a popular podcast. But to simply recite a list of his accomplishments is to understate the impact of his life and of his death.
That is exactly right. When an assassin shot Kirk, that person killed a man countless students felt like they knew, and the assassin killed him on a college campus. Many students will take this loss personally. Many others will now feel a sense of dread on their own campuses.
Who can feel safe? Where can they feel safe? Whatever you think of Kirk (I had many disagreements with him, and he with me), when he died he was doing exactly what we ask people to do on campus: Show up. Debate. Talk. Engage peacefully, even when emotions run high.
In fact, that’s how he made his name, in debate after debate on campus after campus.
One of the worst elements of modern political discourse is that we tend to learn about our opponents entirely through the words and actions we find offensive. We’re subjected to a constant barrage of posts that begin with words like, “Can you believe Charlie Kirk said this?” or “Did you see this nonsense?” and then point to the clips or quotes that make us the angriest.
We don’t ever see the points of agreement. We rarely see the person outside his political context. Post by post, our hearts harden until some people reach a point where they will celebrate the deaths of people they’ve grown to despise.
Just moments ago, I watched gutting footage of Kirk’s daughter running up to hug him when he was on the set of Fox News. Kirk wasn’t just an avatar for a political point of view; he was a person whom many, many people loved. If politics prevents us from mourning a wife’s loss of a husband or two kids’ loss of a father, then we are lost.
Every threat, every assault, every shooting, every murder — and certainly every political assassination — builds the momentum of hate and fear.
You can look at the history of American conflict and unrest and see the same pattern time and again. What starts as a political difference becomes a blood feud the instant someone is hurt or killed. And so each act of political violence has a double consequence. It shatters families, and — over time — it breaks nations.
Already we’re seeing calls for vengeance online. In post after post, Kirk’s grieving friends and allies are declaring that “we’re at war” and “THIS IS WAR.”
Assassination can cost us our country. We lose it when we stop seeing our opponents as human, when we crave vengeance more than peace, when the motivation for our political engagement stops being the common good of our constitutional Republic (or even just the security of our families), but is rather inflicting pain and anguish on our political enemies.
I only met Kirk once, in 2021. We were speaking at the same Christian conference, and a mutual acquaintance introduced us. We’d already had some disagreements, so I was curious about how he’d respond when we met. He was perfectly civil, even friendly and self-deprecating. We talked a bit about our families, talked through a few points of disagreement, and discussed the possibility of debating our differences on campus someday.
That’s one thing I respected about Charlie — and it’s worth emphasizing because the assassin attacked him as he spoke on campus — he wasn’t afraid of a debate. He was willing to talk to anyone. And when he was shot in the middle of a debate, the assassin didn’t just take aim at a precious human being, created in the image of God, he took aim at the American experiment itself.
I’m reminded of the famous closing words of Lincoln’s first Inaugural Address. With a national calamity looming, he ended with a plea that subtly captured the danger ahead: “I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.”
The Confederacy rejected Lincoln’s appeal, but our generation faces its own choice. We have to work through our deep divide, recover our decency. The ballot box exists. Free speech exists. The gun cannot rule the day.”
Murder is a morally unacceptable. The murder of Charlie Kirk is no exception.
But I remember how, when Nancy Pelosi’s husband was brutally assaulted in their home, Charlie Kirk tried to raise money for the assailant’s bail, and demonized Paul Pelosi. To avert political violence we all must do whatever we can; instead, Kirk contributed to the atmosphere that produces political violence in the wake of Paul Pelosi’s assault. And our president in his social media posts is this very day pouring fuel on the fire of desire for retaliation against Democrats and liberals, threatening and demonizing them in connection with Kirk’s assassination (in fact, we don’t have any idea of the political affiliation of the assassin at this time). When a president is the main source of violent rhetoric against political opponents, it will require nothing less than a miracle for political violence to be reigned in rather than made to run rampant. The leader is leading us down into the hell of violent civil conflict, and both the Congress and Supreme Court have stepped aside and are allowing him to do it. Our government is failing us right into some kind of civil war.
Charlie Kirk didn’t debate. He used bullying sophism to corner mostly younger and less experienced would-be interlocutors, and then lowered the “Prove me wrong!” boom. The “Prove me wrong!” ploy is a sure signal that your so-called “debate opponent” is not interacting with you in good faith.
I repeat – May his seat in the public square be filled 1000 fold. May his witness to Christ be his major legacy. May his civility and fearless free speech not be silenced. Thank you David French for reflecting his ways. Lastly, may there be no vengeance.
I think the article Duane posted here is fair and charitable. I am certain I agree with Charlie more than Michael and Duane do and most of the rest of the people here, but I didn’t agree with him about everything. He was from Calvary Chapel and the areas where I would disagree would be the unique things Calvary Chapel teaches which I have left behind, such as Zionism and the peculiarities of evangelical theology. But he got the basics right and was a brave and virtuous man and while I didn’t follow him closely, I feel the loss.
As usual, I agree with Alan 100%
That’s me, Xenia
https://religionnews.com/2025/09/11/charlie-kirk-didnt-die-for-his-culture-war-views-he-died-for-free-speech/
David French presumes the Charlie Kirks, Turning Point USA, the Christian Nationalists, and the Trump/MAGA followers actually accept and respect the ballot box. Jan 6, 2021 proved that they won’t in order to get their way. To use his analogy, they are the Confederacy in this case. Their antics on that day are no different than firing on Fort Sumter. As for those who supported and agreed with Kirk but abhorred the violence of Jan 6th, all I can say is the vast majority of Confederate civilians didn’t own slaves or followed the nuances of view of state vs. federal powers either.
Don’t agree with the article you linked, Michael. Just don’t. Kirk’s performances were not about free speech, but about humiliating and minimizing those who disagreed with him in pretend public debates. And now his death will be used by Trump and his people to undercut the free speech of everyone who disagrees with them using language that the regime will declare incitement to violence. For instance, they will claim that calling Trump a fascist is unacceptable violent rhetoric, that it causes violence, and they will use the full force of government power to prevent and punish people for doing so; the problem is that fascist is a perfectly truthful descriptor for Trump and his movement, but they don’t want the truth spoken and they will do everything in their power to silence it.
Robert F
I agree with you that Kirk’s Prove Me Wrong engagements employ tactics that render very poor forms of debate. But guess what, a ton of young people have bonded with him and it ranks high on their list as a good experience of debate.Whether they agree with him or not.
But, it’s an exercise of free speech bro no matter what and we need to build bridges to fill the void of Charlie Kirk who like it or not was filling a void.
French’s article is a good example of extracting the elements that are good and praiseworthy to build bridges of peace in this chaotic environment.
Do you want to be right or connect with the next generation in redemptive relationship and conversation?
Robert F,
I share some of your observations and concerns.
We still have to be the best we can be…
I didn’t care at all for Kirk, especially after his comments about the attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband. However, I object strongly to any random acts of violence that affect both public safety and the natural order of law and debate. For example, I was never a fan of George Wallace or Larry Flynt, but I did not find that the attempts on their lives served to further anything except the cause of general mayhem. Our country is creating assassins instead of debaters of the government policies they oppose.
victorious, I can’t speak regarding whatever positive, or negative, experiences young people may have had in discussion with Kirk; I have no idea how one would have adequate access to that information to speak knowledgeably enough to make a generalization. I can say that they cannot have had a positive experience of debate with Kirk, because what they experienced with him was not debate.
To oppose being right and connecting is to make a false dichotomy. What matters is reaching out humbly and in truth, and in regard to debate that means: no wimps, and no bullies.
If he was really a hero of free speech, it is especially ironic that his advocates in politics and in society at large today are exploiting his death to shut down free speech; I don’t, however, believe he was a hero, but a victim, along with so many others in our country, of gun violence.
Everyone in these comments seems to be proceeding under the assumption that Kirk’s assassin was some kind of liberal or progressive. I think, at this point, that is a totally unwarranted assumption. The picture that the authorities are currently circulating regarding a person of interest in the assassination shows a young man wearing a t-shirt with an American flag decoration, which, to play on stereotypes, does not tend to fit with the sartorial habits of a radical progressive.
I would think that there might be a laundry list of possible killers in this instance, but the MAGA crowd has rallied around the radical left as responsible, without evidence. Proof and evidence are hallmarks of our judicial system, but are being undermined from ‘the top.’
Robert F, the cynic in me would theorize that the death of Kirk was a Reichstag fire setup and that the shooter is really some Proud Boy or Oathkeeper.
It really doesn’t matter who did this assassination. It is as horrible and reprehensible as the man who killed the CEO of the insurance company. It has the same heart and to many the same justification for murder.
I hope that if the suspect turns out to be a handsome appearing young man, we won’t see a bunch of stupid young girls and boys going goo goo ga ga over him as their folk hero.
This is a horrible crime. Maybe Donald Trump should consider sending the National Guard to Utah.
Well the first and second amendments had an impasse – the sixth commandment bore the result. We are all drinking the poison. What will become of us.
Don’t believe everything you read online, it goes without saying.
For instance, the horror author Stephan King posted that Charlie Kirk advocated stoning homosexuals. Not true. So he apologized, maybe sincerely, who knows. I can be a cynic too: I suspect he posted the apology to avoid being Bud Lite-ed. But he deleted the lie he posted with the best grace he could muster up so there’s that.
How many lies have we believed? Both sides?
I spent an hour or so last night watching clips from Charlie’s Q and A sessions at various colleges. He gave everyone a chance to speak. If you want to call his traditional responses, given in a calm and polite manner, bullying- well, you see what you want to see but what I saw was a brave young man, clearly risking his life (as it turns out) offering normal and traditional answers. I get that many here don’t like those answers. Well, like Charlie, I believe you have the right to your opinions and Michael has the right to allow you to express them here.
I noticed that Charlie’s fans did not riot and burn down cities.
Robert F. Kennedy,
April 5, 1968
https://youtu.be/Vt7IuKoETEc?si=DwvhmGwHAwbOLF1v
Duane, thanks much for posting. How very sad that it was only about 2
months later when he was killed by an assassin’s bullet.
Powerful address. Sadly, we haven’t learned the lesson(s).
bob1
He could’ve given the speech today…
Xenia,
My perception of Kirk’s interactions with young people is very different from yours; each of us can only be faithful to our own perceptions, and that has nothing to do with “….well, you see what you want to see…”
If Charlie Kirk had been the most recent of a series of victims going back years and decades brutalized and murdered in public by police officers in his fans’ neighborhood, then your implied comparison might hold water.
People need to understand that Kirk was dismissive of empathy and he stated that even if some people die due to gun violence it was worth it and a prudent deal to have the 2nd Amendment. The irony (and maybe Fate or God has a sense of humor) is that Kirk died due to gun violence and his last public comment was about his dislike of empathy. And the even bigger irony is that all of Kirk’s followers and cultists expect and demand others to have empathy in this situation when they absolutely refused to when kids were gunned down in schools, when Pelosi’s husband was attacked (Kirk even offered to help with the attacker’s bail), etc. He and his followers made their bed, now sleep in it.
Duane,
Sadly, that’s completely true.
Ra’s al Ghul,
Kirk’s murder was sad and tragic in exactly the same way and degree as the countless victims of gun violence in this country whose names are forgotten by the end of the next news cycle; and calls forth empathy to the same extent as theirs, an empathy that Kirk said we shouldn’t have at all. By holding to the same empathy for him and them one follows the path of Jesus more closely than Kirk would have us.
The issue at hand is whether or not this is a historical turning point in American history.
It’s already established that his version of Christianity has won the day…
Michael
“It’s already established that his version of Christianity has won the day…”
If you mean a version of USA Christianity then I guess you are correct.
Personally I never paid much attention to Kirk over the years, that is until his tragic assassination.
I did watch one of his “Prove me wrong” videos a few years ago. How topic didn’t impress me at all and I can’t really remember what it was about. What I do remember was the vial treatment he received from a middle aged white woman.
As far as versions of Christianity go… you know full well each culture across the globe has a different version of Christianity and who Jesus is. Even your views have been challenged and called heretical.
I’m too old now to debate doctrines and theology with the young men and women of the world these days. I talk more about the grace and patience of God and how humans continue to ignore historic failures and successes of previous generations.
I know this to be true;
Humans will never do religion, worship, socialism, democracy, republic, communism or any thing 100% right. We humans always end up making a mess of things. And this is the grace of God shown to creation since the end of the flood story.
Nothing new under the sun, we just now have running water, flush toilets, electricity and social media.
PS. Yesterday, 9/11, I remember the associate of mine who died in Pennsylvania because of 4 evil men and their associates. So what can be compared to Kirk’s death? Young motivated men killed them all.
“Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.”
1 John 4:7-10
Michael, I feel like a stranger in a strange land. Like the Magi in Eliot’s poem, I am
“….no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation,
With an alien people, clutching their gods.
I should be glad of another death.”
Robert F,
That resonated hard with me…thank you!
TH,
I think Trump owes the election to Kirk…and I believe that administrations policies are anti-Christ more often than not.
He and I didn’t worship the same god…I guess we’ll both find out if we got it right…
Michael,
“There’s a wideness in God’s mercy/Like the wideness of the sea…”
I place my hope in it being sufficiently wide to, ultimately, embrace you, me, Kirk and all of the rest of the worst and best of us.
“And all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well…”
If Charlie and you don’t worship the same God, then you and I don’t worship the same God.
Robert F,
Beings I lean toward ultimate reconciliation, that’s not hard for me to imagine.
Xenia,
That would be for you to discern.
Charlie Kirk supported policies that tore (non white) families apart in cruel ways…supported tearing down the safety net for American poor and other policies that resulted in real people dying (Ukraine)…and did so in Jesus name.
Jesus told me otherwise…one of us was sadly mistaken.
Wow,
Sounds like the case that inspired young Tyler. The evil fascist had to be stopped. Pretty sure we’ve heard someone.
These either or narratives work.
I have no idea what inspired Tyler except criminal lunacy.
I do know that Kirk’s martyrdom is already being weaponized against anyone who believes that this country is sliding into fascism…and it may be the historical turning point where the American experiment dies.
Well
The shooter wrote fascist on his bullet. Driven by the same motive.
2+2 Dread
Dread,
This is infantile argumentation.
The fact that a deranged man chose to grossly exceed the society’s limits on resistance, does not mean that no resistance can be allowed.
I resist almost all that this administration does…my knowledge of history tells me that it is authoritarian and can could easily slide into full fascism.
I condemn any political violence.
You who champion Kirk’s free speech wish to silence mine…while your prophets incite the same kind of violence they decry.
each of the political assassinations and attempts in the past couple years (in the US) have been shooters from the ‘right,’ either firmly entrenched or disillusioned thereby. I fail to comprehend how those holding to that perspective continue to blame the ‘left’ even after the shooters have been thus identified. As a moderate Republican, I am bewildered by the sad state of political life, especially when the constitution and other founding documents gave us such a solid foundation. As the circles get drawn tighter and smaller, soon there won’t be room for one’s own shadow. All the more reason for me, as a Christian, to embrace the Kingdom of God as my identity and live for that purpose alone.
fil,
Well said…I’ll say the amen.
From The Dispatch:
Rachael Larimore
Hello. Charlie Kirk’s rise to fame began inauspiciously when he formed Turning Point USA in 2012 at the age of 18, with “no money, no connections and no idea what I was doing.” He sought to bring conservative viewpoints to college campuses dominated by liberal and progressive politics, garnering attention for his often controversial statements. Kirk aligned himself with the MAGA movement as Donald Trump took over the GOP, and his empire and influence grew accordingly: He had an enormously popular podcast, TPUSA now has chapters on more than 800 campuses nationwide and annual revenues approaching $100 million, and his Turning Point Action political advocacy group conducted extensive voter turnout operations for Trump in 2024.
On Wednesday, Kirk was back doing what made him famous—debating students on a college campus in Utah—when he was fatally shot. Kirk, 31, leaves behind a wife and two young children. He also leaves behind a complex legacy.
Michael Warren and John McCormack spoke with figures in the conservative movement who knew Kirk. They wrote:
Kirk was the face of young conservatism both on campus and in the broader media landscape, and he was perhaps the most influential voice among right-leaning members of Gen Z—certainly more than any elected official besides Trump. And unlike politicians and political celebrities on TV and online who seemed distant or out of reach, Kirk rubbed elbows with his fans, arguing with their progressive peers and making those who were with him feel a part of the fun of political engagement.
Kirk was, to put it mildly, a firebrand. Critics have spent the days since his death circulating some of his more incendiary comments—about civil rights and affirmative action, immigration, Islam, and LGBT issues, but some figures on the left praised him. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who had Kirk as the first guest on his own podcast back in March, said that he “admired his passion and commitment to debate” and Ezra Klein wrote in the New York Times that Kirk was “practicing politics in the right way.”
Our own Nick Catoggio took issue with Klein’s assertion, arguing in Boiling Frogs (🔒) that “Charlie Kirk was a prominent face in a postliberal political faction. He wasn’t the most ardent authoritarian in the ranks, and he certainly wasn’t the person of lowest character. But the movement he promoted and with which he aligned himself fundamentally doesn’t believe in doing politics ‘the right way,’ and we should all remain clear about that in our grief. It likes to intimidate its opponents.”
Kevin Williamson recalled an incident a few years ago in which residents of a wealthy Florida community sought to have Kirk disinvited from a speaking engagement because his presence made them feel unsafe. He wrote that “People who make you uncomfortable are not a threat. People who shoot you with a .30-06 are a threat.” And he continued:
It would not do to try to draw some kind of straight-arrow vector from political rhetoric to political violence. But neither would it do to deny that the argument for disinviting Charlie Kirk from a low-stakes speaking engagement in Florida is a very close cousin to the argument for assassinating him: that he and his speech and his ideas are—were—a threat from which the threatened parties must defend themselves.
Contributing writer Paul D. Miller offered up a fair and respectful critique of Kirk, noting some of his more unsavory comments and actions while acknowledging, “He entertained half a generation of college students with his wit and passion, making Team Red both rebellious and cool.”
And Miller pulled back for a broader view:
His life, as much as his murder, reflected the nation that created him. Our obsession with social media made a career like his possible. Our cultural illiteracy and historical ignorance made debaters like him persuasive. Our neglect of institutions gave his an opportunity to grow. Our irresponsible legacy media gave him an excuse to create his own. Our cowardice in discourse made Charlie Kirk possible.
On Friday morning, President Donald Trump appeared on Fox News and announced that a suspect in Kirk’s killing was in custody. Hours later, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox and FBI Director Kash Patel announced that Tyler Robinson, 22, of Washington, Utah, had been taken into custody. Robinson reportedly admitted his involvement to his father, and a family friend contacted law enforcement. Robinson was taken into custody late Thursday night. While speculation has abounded regarding his motivation—with conservative supporters bemoaning leftist political violence and some on the left seeking to portray him as a far-right “groyper”—authorities have not offered a clear explanation, and there may not be one. What is certain, however, is that Kirk’s murder is the most shocking example yet of political violence in a divided nation where such horrific events have been on the rise, as Grayson Logue reported Friday.
Thank you for reading.
Jonah Goldberg:
I could leave it there, but I don’t want to because something else needs to be said. Just because speech is not violence and violence is not speech doesn’t mean there isn’t a relationship between the two. Popular support for free speech in America has been declining, and that’s bad. The good news is that as a matter of law, the United States has the strongest free speech protections of any country in the world. (A few have arguably equally strong laws on the books, but they are enforced less robustly and most of them have carveouts for restrictions on “hate speech.”)
But even in America, we recognize that words and violence can be complementary, which is why incitement to violence is a crime, even if the bar for incitement is very, very, high. But just because that bar for criminal speech is very high doesn’t mean any speech that fails to cross that bar is just fine. People have the legal right to do all sorts of terrible and indefensible things, including say bad things. I wouldn’t have it any other way, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us shouldn’t exercise our free speech (and other rights) to condemn irresponsible or gross speech. A cashier who hurls racial epithets at customers should not be arrested and prosecuted for hate speech. He certainly should be fired. Where to draw lines in politics, or civil society generally, about irresponsible speech can be hard and messy, but that doesn’t mean lines should not be drawn.
I’ve found so much of the cacophony that passes for discourse about Kirk’s assassination repugnant. Trying to draw lines between or around the defensible and indefensible speech over the last few days is so daunting that you end up with a giant knotted scribble or inkblot.
The easiest stuff to condemn is the celebration of his murder. If you celebrate murder, you’re sacrificing your humanity. Period. And I have no problem with shining a spotlight on the fools and ghouls who have done that—when accurate.
But when people shine that spotlight on the fools and ghouls in an effort to falsely accuse vast swaths of other people of sharing those sentiments, you are slandering them. Worse, you are in the business of giving people permission to commit more violence. Perhaps not legally but, again, that is the highest bar—not the only bar.
“We have to have steely resolve,” Steve Bannon declared on War Room, his unironically named podcast. “Charlie Kirk is a casualty of war. We are at war in this country. We are.”
“They are at war with us, whether we want to accept it or not. They are at war with us. What are we gonna do about it?” Fox News host Jesse Watters insisted Wednesday night. “Everybody’s accountable … the politicians, the media, and all these rats out there. This can never happen again. It ends now. … This is a turning point and we know which direction we’re going.”
Shame on these people. If these statements were made in Kinyarwanda—the dominant language of the Hutus—they’d have fit right in on RTLM, the radio network that laid the rhetorical groundwork for the Rwandan genocide.
I watched a lot of coverage of the Kirk assassination, though I stopped following on Twitter because I found the conversation so grotesque at times I feared I’d lose my temper. Every Democratic politician I saw condemned this murder. As far as I could tell, pretty much every progressive pundit and TV host did as well. Matthew Dowd lost his gig at MSNBC for comments that crossed a line far short of condoning Kirk’s murder.
The demonic “they” that Bannon, Watters, et al are conjuring does not exist. Before you come back at me with specific examples of the cherry-picked ghouls and fools I referred to before, let me stipulate—again—those people should not only be ashamed, but shamed. But this monolithic edifice of “politicians, the media, and all these rats”—as Watters put it—do not exist.
There is no war.
The most dangerous thing about this rhetoric is not the wholesale slander and dehumanization—though that is deplorable—it is the claim that “they” are already at war with “us.” That’s what conjures comparisons to Rwanda. The Hutus seeded the airwaves with claims that the Tutsis were the ones waging war on the Hutus and that turning machetes on them wasn’t an act of aggression, but one of self-defense against the “fifth columnists,” the “snakes,” “rats,” and inyenzi (cockroaches).
Did “they” assassinate former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband three months ago? I understand that Sen. Mike Lee would have us believe that’s what happened. But Lee’s Twitter-poisoning makes him an unreliable source. Did “they” send a deranged madman to Nancy Pelosi’s home with a hammer in 2022? Or to Josh Shapiro’s home with a jerrican of gasoline earlier this year? “They” didn’t order a deranged and disordered man to shoot children at a Minneapolis church. “They” didn’t send someone to kill Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, no matter how many times Trump world insinuates otherwise.
The worst one can plausibly say is that some of the extreme speech of the left or the right unintentionally inspired—to one extent or another—some individual actors, many of whom are mentally ill, to commit evil acts. The lesson of that possibility is to stop using extreme language. The lesson is not to claim the other side deliberately orchestrated the violence while “my” side is innocent of any such intent.
Indeed, it’s amazing to me how some of the people peddling the idea that “they” are orchestrating all of this political violence are the same people who take deep offense at any suggestion that Trump orchestrated the violence of January 6. We don’t need to argue about the incitement standard under Brandenburg v. Ohio to acknowledge that there’s a lot more connective tissue between Trump’s rhetoric on that day than there is connecting Democrats or “the media” to Charlie Kirk’s murder.
There is no “they,” at least not in the way Bannon and Watters et al want you to believe.
But there is an “us” and a “we.” And if we are going to assign culpability to an ominous pronoun, then that is where we should look. We are responsible. Left and right, Democrats and Republicans. The terminally online and the politically disaffected all have some portion of blame, if not necessarily equal portions.
We are not responsible in a legal sense or even in a logical sense. But we, all of us, are responsible for this corruption of our shared spaces, because standing up to it is so much harder than slouching as it unfolds in front of us.
The main driver of bipartisan culpability is selective outrage. Right-wing partisans make jokes about a madman with a hammer bludgeoning Nancy Pelosi’s elderly husband, but they are righteously outraged at any violence or even insult to one of their people. They demand zero tolerance for political violence, but do not object to blanket pardons for goons who stormed the Capitol on Trump’s behalf.
Left-wing partisans rant about the “stochastic terrorism” that is generated by right-wing rhetoric, but celebrate shouting “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free!” and “Globalize the intifada!” They fret about the curtain of fascism descending on America because of the Proud Boys and their ilk, but cheer Antifa as the heirs of the boys who stormed Normandy.
Riots the left likes are mostly peaceful “resistance,” riots the right likes are “days of love” and patriotism. Riots either side doesn’t like are “terrorism.” We cut people on our side slack for their rhetorical excesses as glorious free speech while we condemn the other side’s rhetoric as dangerous and unacceptable.
Not everyone does this. Most of us just roll our eyes and turn from the carnival stalls of cable news and the cesspools of social media to watch sports or reruns of Yellowstone or This Old House. But we tolerate it. For reasons no less lamentable for being understandable, we accept this crap as the new normal. The best of us may not lack conviction, but we squander it, too weary to contend with the ratings-and-click whores who pour their passionate intensity into every screen and speaker.
So things fall apart. The center does not hold because we refuse to hold it. The falcon cannot hear the falconer above the din of his own indulgence. Anarchy is not loosed upon the world in a single cataclysm but in the daily acceptance that there’s nothing to be done, because if something does need to be done someone else will surely do it. But there is no someone else. There is only we—no one but us.
We are not yet at the rough beast slouching toward Bethlehem, but every day we grow more accustomed to its approach.
Michael, thank you for these 2 posts. I know very little about Kirk and this was helpful that way. I admire Jonah Goldberg and his honesty.
bob1,
Thank you…I thought both were helpful.
What is very clear is that Tyler Robinson and his entire family were deeply immersed in gun culture. There are many pictures of them posing with their military-like weaponry, and one of Tyler posing with what looks to my gun-ignorant mind like a machine gun mounted on a tripod on the ground. I see this as another tragic example of pervasive American gun violence enabled by a culture that thinks violence is the solution to our problems; violence is indeed “as American as cherry pie,” and that is a damning indictment of our country and our national character.
I really have a lot of respect for Utah’s governor who I assume is a Republican.
He said:
“Social media is a cancer in our society right now, and I would encourage people to log off, turn off, touch grass, go hug a family member, go out and do good in the community,” he said at the news conference Friday.
I don’t want to get too preachy,” Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said during a news conference Friday, two days after a gunman fatally shot conservative activist Charlie Kirk on a Utah college campus. Cox then took a few minutes to warn that America is in trouble.
“To my young friends out there: You are inheriting a country where politics feels like rage,” the Republican said. “It feels like rage is the only option…We can choose a different path.”
We might take a lesson from history. When George Wallace lay gravely wounded in a Maryland hospital after the attempt on his life during the 1972 presidential campaign, it was not only his allies who came to his bedside. Among the first to arrive were men who had battled him fiercely across the political divide—George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, and Ted Kennedy—each of them representing the liberal wing of the Democratic Party that had long opposed Wallace’s segregationist politics. They came quietly, not to condone his views, but to honor his humanity, to offer words of sympathy to his family, and to stand in silent defiance of the hatred that had pulled the trigger.
many of the weapons mentioned by Robt.F are engrained in the hunting culture popular throughout the nation. Tri-pod and stand mounted weapons are often used for longer range shots for large game where getting close enough not to be scented or seen is difficult. My comment is to counter-balance the presence of guns equalling weapons of violence. I have not seen any of the photos he spoke of, but it would explain the alleged shooter’s ability to hit at 200 yards.
…and in the spirit of full disclosure, I own two pistols and a long gun/rifle for hunting. I do not own any semi-auto or military style guns.
I just saw a video in which Kirk said that Biden should be executed by the government. But both the Trump media, such as FOX, and the mainstream/legacy media are whitewashing his history and turning his memory into that of a heroic voice of rational discourse. He was not. The Trump movement and regime are on the way to full control of the news and social media in this country. I don’t believe that much of what is reported in either the Trump media or the legacy media can be trusted anymore; hunger for power and fear of government retribution are the motives behind the revision of facts. And I certainly don’t believe that anything the regime says through its governmental agencies and departments can be taken or trusted at face value. The lights of informed reporting and understanding are quickly being turned off. The regime is suing and threatening its critics into silence, and that is a fact.
“So it goes”, as Kurt Vonnegut said.
This morning I went to church. It has been hard for me to drag myself in there sometimes, since it is the church we went to and participated in for two years, when we first moved to Arizona 9 years ago. When we bought our house here, we went elsewhere, but after my wife died almost a year ago, we sold the house (and rehomed the emu, peacock, and all the other birds) and I moved into an apartment with a friend.
Now I’m back in this part of town, and the old church is the only one nearby that is worth going to. But it is still tough going back there because of the memories. For example, when I go in the restroom I see the sink where I lost my wedding ring down the drain and they had to take it apart. But at least, after buying a bicycle two weeks ago, I no longer have to go past the hospital where she died to get to church.
So this morning, I was finally feeling pretty good about going there again. But then the pastor prefaced his sermon by saying he was going to say a few extra things “because of the things that happened this week “.
First he mentioned the other acts of violence that had made the national news that week. Then he mentioned the Kirk assassination (without mentioning his name) and referred to him as “a martyr who was a faithful witness to Jesus”.
At this I felt I needed to slip out quietly, glad I was sitting near the back. I was surprised by these words, because I knew and trusted this pastor, and he’d never said anything I construed as political before. First of all, he’s not even American. Also, the church had grown so phenomenally during my absence, I had attributed it to, among other things, not promoting maga or Christian nationalism.
Anyway, he is very approachable, and makes it a point to stand outside and invite people to talk to him. So I will listen to the rest of what he said online, then see what he has to say about it.
How do we show God’s love to these people and yet not compromise with evil?
The Jonah Goldberg article was helpful to me in forming words I shared with our congregation today. Glad you posted it, Michael.
John in AZ,
Methinks the pastor has bought into or is buying into the whitewashing narrative being developed in wake of Kirk’s death. The narrative being pushed by Kirk’s followers, allies, the Evangelical Industrial Complex, etc. If he is approachable, I would politely push back on that narrative by pointing out examples that demonstrate his lack of being a faithful witness. Of course, if he starts to complain about speaking ill of the dead, one could point out that God himself did that with folks like Abraham (pimping out his wife to Pharaoh to save his sorry ass), David (forcing himself on his general’s wife and conspiring to have him killed), and so on.
John,
I think most of us had to give space for reactions to the assassination.
I know I did in our church…
I’m thinking maybe he doesn’t really take time to read political news in depth, and thought he was an exemplary Christian and human being because members of his staff told him so and he took them at their word.
Which seems to be the case with lots of otherwise sincere and well meaning Christians as well. They hear people talk about maga as God’s holy work on Earth and all who oppose it are perpetrating satan’s agenda.
The voices that proclaim otherwise, from a Christian biblical perspective, need to be amplified.
The challenge I gave our church was, what with all the social media conversations flying around, to never forget the gospel and who we represent. At times like these, a pastor should bring the flock to common ground. What do we agree that Jesus would have us do? Then let’s do those things. I’m in a very conservative area, and a lot people were worked up with fear, angst, etc. I felt the need to help deflate some of those “not of the Spirit” emotions. I then read from Galatians 5 (fruit of the flesh vs. fruit of the Spirit.).
My motivation for all this was my personal fear that, among all the crazy and chaos we might, as individuals, lose our soul.
I heartily subscribe to the words of GK Chesterton: “All government is an ugly necessity.” Thus, in our church, we talk very little about government and politics (much to the chagrin of some) because they often don’t mix well with talk of the kingdom of Jesus. We never offer voting guides and I’ve never preached a message to sway a person’s vote. Politically-obsessed people usually last no longer than a couple weeks in our church because we do nothing to enable their idolatry.