I confess. If you asked me on September 9 what I thought of Charlie Kirk, I would have said that I’d heard of him, knew he was a Republican and Trump supporter, but didn’t really know much about what he did nor his policy positions. That would all change the next day when he was assassinated on the campus of Utah Valley University. Immediately, the media predictably went to their respective corners and the big spin machines got into action.
The same thing happened in 2020 with the death of George Floyd. Floyd’s death fit the preferred narratives of CNN, MSNBC and the other left leaning outlets, so they covered the event non-stop for several days. The event along with the relentless coverage lead to the excesses of the BLM movement in the streets and DEI movement in corporate boardrooms over the next few years.
Fox News and other conservative outlets struggled for relevance during the aftermath of Floyd’s death. They tried to defend the actions of the officers, but the video made those arguments seem strained. They tried to point out that Floyd was on drugs. Even then, does that justify allowing him to die by strangulation while asking for help? Eventually, they shifted their focus away from the Floyd murder to the BLM riots. They had more convincing arguments against the rioters who were burning down their own neighborhoods.
Similarly, after Kirk’s murder, Fox News has covered the story non-stop. It fits their narrative that most politically motivated violence is coming from the progressive left. Also similarly, CNN and the left-leaning media have struggled to spin this to fit their political priorities. Specifically, they have pushed two narratives that sound ridiculous when scrutinized.
First, they like to say that Kirk was “divisive.” This is a popular term used by people on both sides, but more frequently during the Trump era by commentators on the left. Trump is divisive, Vance is divisive, Kirk is divisive, etc. When a political commentator says that a politician or political activist is “divisive,” all they mean is that they represent ideas I don’t agree with. Politicians who push ideas I agree with are unifiers. Those that push ideas I don’t agree with are divisive. Therefore, every politician or activist is divisive in the eyes of their political opposition. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, JFK, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama…all divisive to someone.
But perhaps more troubling is the narrative that “he deserved it” or “he brought it on himself.”
The police are called to Bob and Jane’s house for the third time this year to respond to a domestic disturbance call. This time they find Jane with a broken nose and bruises on her upper body. On previous visits, Jane had refused to press charges and convinced law enforcement that everything was fine. This time they take Bob into custody. When Bob appears before a judge, he declares that “the bitch wouldn’t shut up – I didn’t want to hit her, but I had no choice.” Upon hearing this explanation, the judge bangs his gavel and drops all charges. Obviously, Jane got what she deserved.
This is an example, of illustrating the absurd by being absurd. Suggesting that a woman who is assaulted in her own home or a political figure is assassinated is their own fault is another way of saying “there was no other way to deal with this situation.” We know that’s not true. There are many options for a couple who are having difficulty communicating. Likewise, there are many options for addressing a political argument that you disagree with. The best is to mobilize those who agree with you to win elections.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) released a survey of 70,000 students across 257 campuses prior to Kirk’s assassination. It found that 34% of students believe that violence is sometimes justified to stop a campus speech. That number was in the 20% range in 2021. 70-72% said that shouting down speech you don’t agree with is acceptable. (Source: Greg Lukianoff in The Free Press). This is shocking to me.
Another article of relevance from the Free Press is unrelated to Kirk’s murder directly, but sheds light on the eroding conditions on college campuses and the values of Gen Z is Niall Ferguson’s piece Osama bin Laden’s Posthumous Victory. In this article, Ferguson explores how the Islamic world has shifted its focus from jihad (violent revolution) to dawa (non-violent revolution). Qatar has been the largest source of international donations to U.S. universities since 1986. The activities of the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the North American Islamist Trust pour millions of dollars into local muslim centers of influence throughout the U.S. As a result, Americans’ attitudes toward Israel, for example, have shifted dramatically, with even young Republicans having a 50% unfavorable view of Israel – up from 35% just a few years’ ago. Granted, Israel hasn’t helped its image with the way it has handled the war with Gaza – it is clearly losing the PR battle. But western values, like free speech, are the biggest loser in these culture wars. Ferguson makes a compelling case that the west is losing this latest iteration of the crusades.
What we need are more people like Charlie Kirk. He embraced free speech and the public debate of ideas. His “Prove Me Wrong” sessions on college campuses were a brilliant way to engage, rather than stifle, debate. That’s what is supposed to happen on college campuses. Not what happened to Charles Murray, Riley Gaines and lots of other conservative speakers on campuses in the past 10 years, when their events were cancelled or were unable to be held due to raucus protestors.
What we also need is leadership at the national level. Sadly, Donald Trump missed an opportunity. He said some of the right things at first, but eventually went on a typical Trump tirade about how the political left is the problem. Unfortunately, most other politicians I’ve heard are qualifying their statements as well – some version of “it’s a terrible thing, but…”
It’s not just the bombastic rhetoric coming from both sides that leads to events like the murder of Charlie Kirk. It’s that bombastic rhetoric at a time when students are being influenced almost exclusively by anti-western influences and a rejection of the principles of the Enlightenment.
There have been a number of incidents of political violence that came from the right in the past decade – white supremacist Dylan Roof killing 9 at a Bible Study in Charleston 2015, the Charlottesville vehicle attack in 2017, the El Paso Walmart shooting in 2018, the storming of the capital on Jan 6, 2021, a white supremacist shooting in Buffalo in 2022, and others. However these typically receive condemnation from mainstream Republicans and right leaning news outlets. They are only celebrated on rogue websites.
Violence from the left is slightly different. You have the attempted murder of Steve Scalise and other Republican representatives at baseball practice in 2017, which was universaly denounced by left leaning mainstream media. But also two attempts to assasinate Donald Trump and now the assasination of Charlie Kirk, which were not so universally denounced. In fact, social media posts have been sickeningly positive about Kirk’s murder. There is seemingly much more widespread glee from the left than the fringe elements that celebrate right wing violence. Similarly, there was broad liberal media support for Antifa and BLM riots that escalated after George Floyd that destroyed businesses and injured law enforcement officers. Remember the “mostly peaceful” newscasts showing sections of cities on fire?
The worst thing that can happen now is some type of right-wing retaliation. Apart from the 2021 storming of the capital, right wing groups mostly showed restraint in the face of the Antifa and BLM riots post George Floyd. Hopefully, the same will happen after Charlie Kirk. If not, we run the risk of a deteriorating cycle of “revenge” violence that is very difficult to end. The protestant-catholic “troubles” in Ireland went on for decades. The Israel-Palestinian conflict has gone on for centuries. We don’t need ongoing progressive-socialist vs conservative-capitalist violence in the US. We hold elections often so that revolutions are not necessary. Victory should come by winning the battle of ideas at the ballot box, not by eliminating the competition.
I never heard of Charlie Kirk.
What did he do for America to get our flags lowered to half mast?