Ominous Overture?
Charlie Kirk’s killing, and what it portends.
After offering thoughts a few hours after Charlie Kirk was killed, I decided to wait for some facts before providing more opinions.
Nine days later, I realize if I keep doing that I may never say anything (which most readers would probably appreciate).
This incident was obviously tragic. But it strikes closer to home, and further afield, than I initially knew.
Insulting Assumption
While I was familiar with Charlie Kirk, I wasn’t his target market. As I noted last week, I’d heard a few interviews and seen some clips.
Before I did, my impression was he was a run-of-the-mill conservative who made his name debating college kids… like a less abrasive Ben Shapiro.
After listening to more of him the last few days, I rescind that insulting assumption. For one thing, he was more pleasant and thoughtful than Shapiro. And his knowledge, intellect, and style were far superior to the standard Fox News mouthpiece or neocon shill.
My elder son (a recent college graduate) was a fan. But apparently he was more than that. The assassin took one of his admirable heroes. And Lord knows young men need more of those.
Not that Alexander agreed with everything Kirk said. But he respected how and where he said it… on college campuses, addressing opposing views with amicable debate. For doing so, Charlie Kirk lost his life.
Another Exception
How did this tragedy happen? Obvious analogs are Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and the Kennedys. My son made the King comparison, which I initially considered a reach.
But I reacted too soon. After watching the overwhelming response since last week, I think Alexander had a point.
In our hubris, we tend to overrate the historic importance of current events. But the last decade we’ve witnessed many momentous occurrences and pivotal phenomena. This seems like another one.
I have no idea who killed Charlie Kirk, or why. But I doubt whatever the “authorities” say… if only because they’re saying it.
After years of “Russia collusion”, “two weeks to slow the spread”, “safe and effective”, “insurrection”, “unprovoked invasion”, “Epstein hoax”, and “we’re all in this together”, it’s prudent to instinctively distrust whatever government officials tell us.
For a decade, conservatives have been smeared as “fascists”, “Nazis”, “white supremacists”, “Hitler”, and “extremists”. So have people like Donald Trump, who twenty years ago would’ve been indistinguishable from a conventional Democrat. Because that’s what he was.
Tactically, hurling these absurd epithets has had the intended effect. To those who stoke culture wars to sow division and distraction, reasonable voices are the greatest threat. Like Charlie Kirk, they can be more persuasive (and therefore dangerous), especially to the extent they sway young minds.
Inoculating the Flock
The Left has long viewed juvenile brains as fertile terrain. That’s why public schools are so important, and a reason they encourage most kids to go to college.
With chapters proliferating at high schools, Turning Point USA was infiltrating their field and inoculating the flock. Kirk, a college drop-out, was famous for telling high schoolers that, for most of them, college is a mistake.
By doing so, he steered some sheep from academic wolves. But he was most known for grabbing his staff, and trying to shepherd those who joined the pack.
Kirk posed a threat because he was decent, powerful, and determined. He proved that last year. The 2024 election featured an unprecedented swing in the youth vote, a bloc Democrats typically took for granted. Donald Trump lost it by 25 points in 2020; in November the deficit was only four.
The shift was most notable among young men, who favored Trump by 14 points in 2024 while opposing him by the same amount four years earlier. This dynamic was particularly dramatic among young Latinos, who supported Trump by 44 points after favoring Biden by forty.
Some of this is due to the staggering deficiencies of the Democratic ticket. Few candidates have ever been as awful as Kamala Harris. But in most years, young people would’ve rejected such an insulting offering by not voting at all. Thru extraordinary effort, Charlie Kirk convinced many of them to cast a ballot for Donald Trump.
Barely thirty years-old, Kirk had established himself not only as a polished spokesman, but as an outstanding organizer. The one he built was much larger than I’d realized.
Before Kirk was killed, Turning Point USA had affiliates on 2,100 campuses representing a quarter of a million students. Immediately afterward, applications soared… for 32,000 potential new affiliates (about 4M students).
It’s unlikely Donald Trump would’ve won without him, which is probably why so many cheered Kirk’s murder. They also (thought they) knew what this meant for the future.
But among Kirk’s many talents was selecting lieutenants. Whoever felled his tree may have fertilized his forest. When young people are energized, they tend to be active. The current crop has ample motivation, which Kirk unveiled and unleashed.
In certain quarters, this made him dangerous.
Revealing Reactions
He spoke with and for a disgruntled generation that’s inherited debt and inflation from its predecessors, was told to keep borrowing to pursue worthless degrees, and is made up of millions who can’t afford to start families or buy a home (average age for having a first child is almost 28; for first-time home-buyers is 38). Unlike Kirk (at least till recently), they also oppose arming Israel to obliterate Gaza.
How will his audience react to losing their champion? So far, they’ve done so as we’d expect… with prayers, vigils, mutual support, and shared condolences. In many places, they’ve erected memorials, which the usual savages (the types who praised torching and looting when George Floyd overdosed) have tried to destroy or deface.
Since the killing, reactions have been revealing. That of the Left has been revolting, with some pockets praising the murder.
Many were called out, and lost their jobs. That’s good (obviously). It’s bad enough to applaud this assassination. But to film your glee and post it online shows a lack of humanity and judgment that should cost you not only a job, but any respect from civilized society.
That fired employees were surprised at their fate reflects the echo chambers into which they sealed themselves. Their cultural segregation had clearly convinced them that “reasonable” people shared their warped opinions. Otherwise, why post such incriminating filth for all eternity to see?
Illegitimate Power
Others commentators indicted Israel… about which Kirk was becoming more circumspect. To downplay this, Benjamin Netanyahu – who apparently tried to buy (or at least buy-off) TPUSA – cynically waved letters proclaiming Kirk’s affection for Israel, used his death to urge strengthened US support, and implied (as always) his country was somehow a victim.
Predictably, the US government is using Kirk’s killing to assert illegitimate power. Attorney General Pam Bondi promised to “target” people for “hate speech”, particularly “antisemitism”.
As far as we know, antisemitism has nothing to do with Kirk’s murder. But wielding the Left’s “hate speech” hammer is particularly appalling. That notion has no place in American law.
Neither “hate” nor “speech” are crimes, and the US government has no right to “target” people for them. Any official promising to do so should (at the very least) be out of a job. A president accommodating such threats should be impeached.
As the Biden Administration muscled companies to impose its covid edicts and DEI demands, the Trump bunch is pressuring businesses to do its bidding. It seems to have done so with Disney, which just ousted the loathsome Jimmy Kimmel.
If Disney wanted to dismiss Kimmel for repulsive comments (which they were), that’s its prerogative. Companies should be able to fire employees for whatever reasons they want. If that’s what Disney did, it has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
But was that what happened? As when the Biden Administration leaned on social media companies to stifle dissent, the Trump team certainly appears to be threatening voices it doesn’t like.
Here’s FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr before the firing, making an offer Disney couldn’t refuse:
“This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney. We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”
This is obviously unconstitutional. The U.S. government has no authority to prohibit or influence what anyone says, nor to urge employers to ensure no one says it. Even without overt force, government “encouragement” is implicit coercion.
Broken Dam
Many observers have punned that Kirk’s killing is a “turning point”. I agree, and it’s reasonable to wonder which way we’ll go.
But the better question is whether all of us should head the same direction. Like a train with engines at each end, Americans have been pulling apart for twenty years.
Unlike the tumultuous 1960s or the fractious 1850s, the United States are filled with people who not only don’t get along; they don’t want to. With no shared values or common culture, political opponents detest each other.
Like Sunni and Shia, their worldviews are irretrievably incompatible. Forcing them together is futile, and perhaps fatal.
Rather than expect them to swim together in the same current, these fish belong in separate streams flowing different directions. That’s a sensible solution, and the humane one.
At some point, it’s probably inevitable. But that doesn’t mean it’s imminent. The killing of Charlie Kirk seems more like Harper’s Ferry than Ft Sumter: an overture to something ominous… with ramifications few foresee.
It’s been said repeatedly since the shooting that the assailants murdered the “moderate” voice. That’s true. As Michael Malice said of Donald Trump, Charlie Kirk wasn’t the river.
He was the dam.