The Murder of Charlie Kirk

The one thing that the world does not need at this moment is another opinion about Charlie Kirk. Nevertheless, that is exactly what I am going to provide. But I am going to write less about Charlie Kirk the person, something about which I don't actually know very much, but instead about Charlie Kirk the symbol. Because, in the few short hours since he was killed, Kirk has been transformed into a variety of almost mythical incarnations created by political partisans from across the political spectrum. Kirk has become, essentially, a political totem.

One thing that I will not do is lionize Kirk as some sort of hero. Neither will I denigrate him as an unacceptable threat to our political system or society. Kirk may have been those things to others, but to me he was a mixture of them. What I do believe is that Kirk was a person of his time who understood which waves he could ride to success. Foremost in that regard, Kirk was an online personality. Though he was famous for his in-person events in which he challenged others to debate him or the type of event at which he was shot in which he encouraged dialogue with the audience, his fame was due to his online presence. Online celebrity has introduced a new form of interaction between online personalities and their fans or followers. The two-way communications that the Internet has enabled lead to strong feelings of connection. Feelings for a figure such as Kirk often border on the parasocial, with supporters having particularly robust feelings of loyalty. Kirk's online presence was such that almost anyone who is routinely online was, at a minimum, aware of him. Those who spend little time online likely have had no idea who he is. The fact that Kirk was chronically online was crucial to his success, as well as fundamental to explaining the intensity of the reaction to his death.

Another phenomenon that Kirk grasped and, in fact, contributed to spreading, was a particular understanding of free expression. Kirk has been described almost religiously as a proponent of free speech. Personalities from across the political spectrum have reacted to his murder by praising his commitment to dialogue. However, I would posit that Kirk is an almost perfect representative of a view of free expression in which "free speech" is defined as permitting the most offensive of views while simultaneously rejecting the validity of criticism of those views. As such, it is okay to insult minorities, gay people, or any other marginalized group, but any sort of negative reaction is considered an infringement of free expression and an indication of intolerance. Conversely, Kirk and those like him believe that free expression allows them to attack others for their speech. This is a very one-sided understanding of free speech.

Kirk clearly grasped that there was a huge pool of disaffected individuals, especially among the youth, that could be energized by messages that their free speech was being infringed upon by political correctness, "wokeness," and the intolerant left and that they should be able to hold "incorrect" views without being criticized as a result. In this regard, "free speech" became less a means for empowerment and more of a method of exploiting resentment.

Probably the best example of the view of free speech that I am describing is the project Kirk started under the umbrella of Turning Point USA called Professor Watchlist. As its website says, "The mission of Professor Watchlist is to expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom." The organization takes the Orwellian position that it protects the free speech of college professors while adding them to a blacklist. In practice, professors end up on Professor Watchlist due to allegations that they support "DEI" or for their off-campus activities. Professors listed on the website often report being subject to continual harassment, including threats and attempts to have them fired. Some have even lost their jobs. If Kirk had been true to his professed principles, he would have challenged these professors to debates rather than making them targets of intimidation. The traditional view of free expression, which is based on Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis’s "Counterspeech Doctrine", holds that the remedy to speech that is disliked is "More speech, not enforced silence." Therefore, Kirk should have advocated for more right-wing professors rather than blacklisting those with whom he disagreed.

Nevertheless, as I said in the introduction, the reality of Charlie Kirk is no longer of much importance. Kirk will now be used as others choose to use him. For some on the left, that will mean demonizing him. I've already seen lists being compiled showing Kirk's "greatest hits," or the worst things that he ever said. The items are often taken out of context, though I will agree that Kirk did say a lot of things that are inconsistent with the image of him now being created by his supporters. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those turning Kirk into a sort of saint and those who see his death as their "Reichstag Fire." It is that second group that is most concerning.

Clearly, the worst part of yesterday's shooting is that Kirk was murdered. The second worst thing is the rush to exploit his death as a license to launch an all-out assault on the political left. This starts with cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump. Trump spoke about Kirk from the Oval Office and condemned those who "demonize those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and despicable way possible." I don't think a more ironic statement has ever been made in that office. Trump went on to describe politically motivated violence which he blamed entirely on the "radical left." At that time, the perpetrator had not been identified, and there was no way that Trump could know the shooter's motive. Moreover, Trump ignored all attacks by right-wingers, including the recent murder of former Minnesota Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman and her husband, and the shooting at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which left a police officer dead. In fact,  the ADL reports:

All the extremist-related murders in 2024 were committed by right-wing extremists of various kinds, with eight of the 13 killings involving white supremacists and the remaining five having connections to far-right anti-government extremists. This is the third year in a row that right-wing extremists have been connected to all identified extremist-related killings.

Clearly, if Trump wants to eliminate political violence, he should start at his end of the political spectrum. However, for Trump, Kirk's death is an opportunity and one that he clearly does not intend to miss. Based on Trump's words, he plans a broad attack on left and liberal organizations justified by allegations that they support violence.

Trump was far from the only one seeing Kirk's murder as an invitation for a wide-scale attack on the left. Podcaster and author Matt Forney was blunt:

Charlie Kirk being assassinated is the American Reichstag fire. It is time for a complete crackdown on the left. Every Democratic politician must be arrested, and the party banned under RICO. Every libtard commentator must be shut down. Stochastic terrorism. They caused this.

Sean David, the CEO and co-founder of The Federalist, wrote that "The Democrat party is a domestic terrorist organization" and called for Democrats to be "held accountable and removed from civil society."

Chris Rufo, the instigator of so many recent MAGA initiatives, tweeted that:

The last time the radical Left orchestrated a wave of violence and terror, J. Edgar Hoover shut it all down within a few years. It is time, within the confines of the law, to infiltrate, disrupt, arrest, and incarcerate all of those who are responsible for this chaos.

All-around weirdo and Peter Thiel acolyte Blake Masters, who famously filmed a creepy campaign advertisement of him doing nothing but shooting a gun, retweeted a post by Mike Cernovich calling for RICO investigations of Democratic Party funders and added that "Either we destroy the NGO/donor patronage network that enables and foments it, or it will destroy us."

Essentially, it doesn't matter who killed Kirk or what that person's motivation might have been. Trump and the others have already decided. In the name of a proponent of free speech, they will squash the ability of the left to engage in free expression, free association, and political organizing. As Forney clearly put it, this is their "Reichstag Fire." Adolph Hitler famously used that event to attack the communists. Trump is suggesting that he will use this moment to similarly attack the left.