While I firmly believe that no one should be killed for their views, no matter how abhorrent, this is a clear "reap what you sow" situation. Charlie Kirk advocated for public executions, thought empathy was a mistake and thought children's bodies obliterated by bullets was the price you pay for "freedom". I guess I'm supposed to be better than that, take the high road, feel sorry, but I don't. My sadness is for what this country has become, and people like Charlie Kirk helped make it that way.
What an absolutely disgusting portrayal of Charlie Kirk's views. Do you believe anyone who supports 2A should be gunned down in the streets? Do you understand the commonly held belief that empathy leads to affirming sin? Are you really justifying his assassination by grossly mischaracterizing his beliefs?
I've seen multiple iterations of the exact same two or three Kirk quotes circulated online by those who claim indifference or are actively celebrating his death. This is because the people sharing this information know quite literally nothing about Kirk other than his political affiliation. He was a mainstream conservative who has been labeled a MAGA extremist by people on the left. The constant demonization of anyone right of center has got to stop. He was passionate yet respectful. He was willing to debate and discuss politics with anyone and everyone. He was not the monster you portray. I fear people with your mindset, one in which political assassination is acceptable if you hold the wrong political beliefs, are the real danger to our society. Why would I give up my guns to the very people who would be perfectly fine with my death?
What is the context for "Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more."
Or "Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America."
Why can we not allow the man the intelligence and autonomy to believe that he knowingly said incendiary things? Why do we have to deny him the right to his complicated legacy?
Yes we have to be able to deeply disagree with someone’s opinion and still think they deserve to live. The need to erase anything negative in order to do that is part of our problem. It shouldn’t be a problem to say this person had problematic beliefs in my opinion and also they didn’t deserve to die. There are unforunately people who can’t do that. And it is hard to grapple with. Like it is hard to grapple with anyone who thinks others don’t deserve to live.
Yes, thank you! When folks insist that a person's legacy can only be entirely good (or entirely bad), or they get uncomfortable when a "good" person's faults are also made clear, whether those folks realize it or not they are ultimately reinforcing the idea that people can only be good OR bad... and if someone is bad, they might actually have deserved a bad fate.
1. People are immensely complicated: their good works should be praised, and their bad works equally recognized, because neither one negates the other.
Why are these very specific quotes the primary focus in his death? He has been in public life for essentially 13 years. If you dig through everything he's ever said, you'll find some inflammatory language, sure. Especially when you cherry-pick words from their broader context. You likely would find this to be true with any public figure. But people are using these words to justify his murder. He was not an extremist. Conflating every conservative with extremism only contributes to this type of political violence.
I am so, so glad that I cannot comprehend what it is like to rejoice in someone's death. I cannot relate to those who believe he got what he deserved. People who feel anything other than sorrow or disgust for a man assassinated in front of his wife and young children are soulless and so evil that there truly are no words to describe them. And those same people will claim moral superiority while chastising others for who they voted for.
Homer, you are significantly projecting intent onto myself (and other people). I don't want to assume why that is, or assign any specific motives to your words, but I do need to challenge you to consider why you are escalating this rhetoric so significantly.
If people are using Charlie Kirk's words to "justify his murder" then that is their sin to address. It doesn't mean he never said those words.
"Conflating every conservative with extremism only contributes to this type of political violence." That conflation is categorically not happening here inside this conversation, or the comments to which you are replying.
"I am so, so glad that I cannot comprehend what it is like to rejoice in someone's death." So am I. There is no rejoicing here.
"I cannot relate to those who believe he got what he deserved." I cannot either. That is not happening here.
"People who feel anything other than sorrow or disgust for a man assassinated in front of his wife and young children are soulless and so evil that there truly are no words to describe them." Completely agreed! Also not a thing that is happening here, but if you think that pointing out the words that Charlie Kirk said (out of many, many, many other words and thoughts just like them) makes someone soulless and evil, you've done a far better job at dehumanizing those you disagree with than anyone else has in this conversation.
"And those same people will claim moral superiority while chastising others for who they voted for." Again, it feels as though you are having an intensely emotional response that is projecting a lot of things onto these comments in this conversation. I'm sorry this has been so difficult, but I would ask that you consider stepping away for a bit if you're not able to read what is actually being said with understanding and empathy.
Charlie Kirk was a husband and a father. He was a political provocateur and held many strong beliefs. He challenged himself to conversations with many people who absolutely hated him. He was killed, brutally and unjustly. He also held extremist beliefs. He said cruel, unkind, and callous things, and he contributed to divisive rhetoric. There has always existed groups of public figures, across the political spectrum, who earn their living by deepening divides within their own country. Charlie Kirk was not alone in that pursuit, and I doubt he himself ever understood that's what he was doing, but no peacemaker or bridge-builder forms rhetoric that insults, divides, and demonizes. He was a bright, intelligent person who did not deserve to die, but who does deserve to be understood as a complete and deeply complicated soul.
Of all people Emily is not rejoicing in anyone’s death. Holding space for multiple truths is not the same thing as rejoicing. We can say I deeply disagree with someone and they do not deserve violence or death. I can also not relate to anyone celebrating this or any other death.
I have read this comment several times. I have taken time to look for primary sources that state Charlie Kirk advocated for public executions and couldn't find any. Could you provide your source? Also, as a staunch pro-life advocate, it seems a fallacy to state that he "thought childrens bodies obliterated by bullets was the price you pay for freedom". Though he was a gun rights advocate, as many are, it doesnt equate dead children. We need better gun laws. Less guns.
I have gone back and listened to many of his interviews and interactions. He didnt make fun or call names. He invited conversations. I believe thats what the whole It Starts With Us movement is all about.
None of that - absolutely NONE OF THAT - justifies his being murdered. Full stop.
But we can also be honest about the legacy that he chose to build, and the rhetoric that he chose to spread, while also standing firm against political violence.
On his weekly panel discussion, "ThoughtCrime," Kirk was discussing death penalties of those convicted of crimes, adding that not only does he believe there should be public executions, but that children should watch them.
"Death penalties should be public, should be quick, it should be televised. I think at a certain age, its an initiation...What age should you start to see public executions?" Kirk asked.
Kirk, along with his co-hosts Jack Posobiec, Tyler Bowyer and Blake Neff, continued to discuss at what age should children watch the public executions, with one co-host pointing out as young as 12 years old.
I had never heard what he espoused, but all of what you've mentioned is heinous! If he actually said that about children's bodies, I wonder what he would have thought if it had been his children's bodies.
The exact quote was this: "I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational." (TPUSA event in April 2023)
He said this 8 days after a school shooting in Nashville where three 9-year-olds and three adults were killed, so he was clearly reacting to that event and including children in the gun deaths.
Thank you! I do understand the imagery he was evoking, but I just don't think we need to put words into his mouth (you weren't doing that, but it seemed there was some confusion about exactly what he said and I wanted to clarify).
You're right, and I thank you for the quote. I am frustrated with rhetoric that does not convey the violence involved in "gun deaths", so I included it, thinking of how some of the children killed in Uvalde had to be identified by DNA.
That’s very interesting about GW. A real contradiction, a good man who owned slaves.
I don’t know how many columns I’ve read over the last 24 hours lamenting political violence in this country on both sides and how “we” need to bring down the temperature. What I haven’t seen, except for a brief clip from Elizabeth Warren on CNN, is any mention of Donald Trump, the leader of the free world, and his ugly, violent rhetoric. Trump, the Violence-Monger-in-Chief, who before Kirk’s body was even cold, jumped into the media to blame liberals for everything and threatening punitive actions against not only the perpetrator(s) but any and all groups, organizations, judges, etc., that he thinks aided liberals.
Then he actually had the gall to say:” It’s long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and despicable way possible.” This from the man who repeatedly made jokes about Nancy Pelosi’s husband nearly being beaten to death by one of his supporters. He should look in the mirror and read a transcript of all of the horrible, hateful, demonizing things he’s said throughout his entire life. And his party is made in his exact image. MAGA is the party of glorifying guns and bombs, turning their backs on innocent Palestinians dying every day and innocent Ukrainians dying every day, withdrawing food and medical aid from children and families abroad that has already resulted in thousands of deaths, taking food benefits and healthcare from poor people in the U.S., cutting funds for mental health, addiction and policing programs proven to reduce crime and sending armed to-the-teeth soldiers into American cities as a show of force and intimidation, carrying out extra-judicial executions of people on boats in international waters and celebrating the video of their deaths and instituting a truly stupid and insanely expensive name change of the Dept of Defense to the Dept of War, in some sort of performative, pseudo-warrior, macho display. And last but not least, let’s not forget the lovely MAGA Christmas cards where each man, woman and child in the family lovingly holds his or her AK-47. MAGA gained power and has thus far kept it by encouraging a climate of fear and glorifying and celebrating guns and violence. It is despicable and it trickles down from the very top.
"Political violence is not a tactic; it is a toxin. Troops in the streets don’t protect us from it, either; they suggest — falsely — that our cities have already fallen and only extreme measures can restore order. The true danger is complacency: assassinations and the partisan attacks that encourage them make violence seem like an acceptable part of civic life. And that’s what will kill the republic."
I don’t agree with almost everything Charlie Kirk stood for but when we as a nation stop seeing people as human, that’s when we hit a real dangerous, slippery slope. His family was there. Little kids, college students…no one should have to see that.
This shooting isn’t any worse than any other. Am I just as horrified at every school shooting? Every individual or child shot needlessly? The murder of Minnesota House Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark? Absolutely.
The point is to step back and make sure you are not emulating the hate from any side. ‘And that’s what will kill a republic.’
As I have said before on other platforms, two or more things can be true. Violence against someone you disagree with and even abhor is wrong. NO ONE should be murdered for their views or even their moral or ethical character. AND we have an epidemic of gun violence that the majority of our country would say, as one commentator has, requires common sense gun restrictions/legislation, not for those who enjoy shooting at a range or are responsible hunters or even those who want a handgun for protection but even in those circumstances common sense checks on the ability to own and use a lethal weapon; waiting periods, red flag laws and restrictions on automatic weapons outside of a controlled environment. AND Equally true is that at least in public CK is not leaving a legacy of kindness to others and respect for all but his rhetoric, couched in the language of faith, has hurt people. He shouldn’t be canonized nor his views celebrated publically. AND we can mourn and feel sadness for his family and a human life lost. Life is complicated, feelings are complicated. Recognizing this helps us be less divided, less prone to react in anger and hate and far less sure that only a chosen few hold all the answers. For today be kind to all. Show respect to all. Be encouraging to all. That should be everyone’s legacy.
I am sickened by what happened yesterday in my home state, on a peaceful university campus in one of the safest places in our nation. I am grateful for the author's timely reminder of George Washington's views on this sort of political violence. I am also incredibly disheartened by the numerous comments here that display almost cavalier vitriol, whether expressed outright or masked. The blaming, the idea that he somehow brought this on himself, the complete lack of empathy that someone's son, father, and husband was taken at 31 for expressing his opinions, has me horrified. No one deserves this. Please, I beg all of us to stop this hateful rhetoric and tap into our innate sense of humanity. We each hold opinions contrary to someone else's. Being safe to express that openly is what we hold dear in this country. We each want that right, which means giving others that right even when, or dare I say, especially when, we have a hard time hearing it. Tolerance, respect, curiosity, and communication are the qualities that will save us. What each of us can do is open a conversation with someone who feels differently than we do and have the decency to listen respectfully, opening our hearts to truly hear their experience. We don't have to agree. We need to give each person (online or in person) the dignity they deserve. If they are acting undignified, hold yourself to a higher standard. It is the only way we will find our way back to civility and safety.
I haven't seen many here saying he deserved this. I am seeing many pointing out that he greatly contributed to the climate in which something like this was possible-- whether in his view that shootings are the price we pay for the 2nd amendment or the divisive and cruel viewpoints he worked to indoctrinate the young with.
However, today the two factions locked in the struggle are treated by media, and many who should know better, as if both are fighting to take something – power, money, control. The problem is that one party is trying to keep those things for themselves only, and not to give the same benefits, rights, and protections to all the people, while the other is trying to give those things to everyone, not only those who agree with them.
I’m sorry, but I absolutely MUST call out this narrative about GW being against political violence. The hypocrisy of stating that while owning human beings as property and forcing their labor for profit, using them to build an economy yet excluding them from being a part of it, excluding them from all human rights, pulling their teeth out their mouths and having them implanted in his—he inflicted MUCH political violence on countless people. What the narrative around Charlie Kirk’s death is telling me is that it’s only political violence when it happens to white people. This shit has been happening for hundreds and thousands of years. I’m so tired of people acting brand new about it.
Hi Sarah—thanks for your comment. My biography is the only mainstream major work that includes slavery in every chapter (instead of a chapter) and ends by dismantling the familiar narrative that he freed his enslaved people at his death.
I've been criticized for centering it too much but never too little tbh!
As for whether being an enslaver disqualifies him from condemning political violence—after years of studying his life, I assure you, and document, that he was both: someone who lived by, and insisted on, the rule of law in politics while perpetuating enslavement in his household. He embodied those contradictions, and that’s the lesson. Complexity isn’t a weakness—it’s the reality we need to look at much more closely. What we don't need to do is make any of them our heroes; that's a personal choice.
I hear what you’re saying Alexis. I appreciate you answering! Glad to know you’ve included those details in your book. I’m just going off what was written in this article. And yes, human beings are complex. What I’m pointing out is that the rule of law and political violence go hand in hand. They are not separate things. Political violence is perpetuated by the rule of law and has been for centuries. In many many cases the rule of law itself is political violence. You can’t separate the 2.
Was this political violence though? There was a popular post online that said it was not because he was not an elected official or running for office…?
I would think that violence is political if it has a political motive, not just if it's aimed at a politician. We obviously don't know the motive yet, but Charlie Kirk was known for his politics so it's not a stretch to assume his murder was political violence.
I think it’s fair to call it political violence in the same way I would call the assassination of MKL Jr political violence. It was a political podcaster/commentator, holding a political event, discussing political topics. To me, it’s the definition of political violence. You don’t have to be elected to public office to be political. I think you simply have be involved in shaping the political landscape on a largish scale.
While I firmly believe that no one should be killed for their views, no matter how abhorrent, this is a clear "reap what you sow" situation. Charlie Kirk advocated for public executions, thought empathy was a mistake and thought children's bodies obliterated by bullets was the price you pay for "freedom". I guess I'm supposed to be better than that, take the high road, feel sorry, but I don't. My sadness is for what this country has become, and people like Charlie Kirk helped make it that way.
What an absolutely disgusting portrayal of Charlie Kirk's views. Do you believe anyone who supports 2A should be gunned down in the streets? Do you understand the commonly held belief that empathy leads to affirming sin? Are you really justifying his assassination by grossly mischaracterizing his beliefs?
I've seen multiple iterations of the exact same two or three Kirk quotes circulated online by those who claim indifference or are actively celebrating his death. This is because the people sharing this information know quite literally nothing about Kirk other than his political affiliation. He was a mainstream conservative who has been labeled a MAGA extremist by people on the left. The constant demonization of anyone right of center has got to stop. He was passionate yet respectful. He was willing to debate and discuss politics with anyone and everyone. He was not the monster you portray. I fear people with your mindset, one in which political assassination is acceptable if you hold the wrong political beliefs, are the real danger to our society. Why would I give up my guns to the very people who would be perfectly fine with my death?
Charlie Kirk absolutely held and spread extremist views. We don't have to whitewash that to feel absolute horror and revulsion at his unjust murder.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs
This is a list of cherrypicked quotes with zero context.
What is the context for "Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more."
Or "Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America."
Why can we not allow the man the intelligence and autonomy to believe that he knowingly said incendiary things? Why do we have to deny him the right to his complicated legacy?
Yes we have to be able to deeply disagree with someone’s opinion and still think they deserve to live. The need to erase anything negative in order to do that is part of our problem. It shouldn’t be a problem to say this person had problematic beliefs in my opinion and also they didn’t deserve to die. There are unforunately people who can’t do that. And it is hard to grapple with. Like it is hard to grapple with anyone who thinks others don’t deserve to live.
Yes, thank you! When folks insist that a person's legacy can only be entirely good (or entirely bad), or they get uncomfortable when a "good" person's faults are also made clear, whether those folks realize it or not they are ultimately reinforcing the idea that people can only be good OR bad... and if someone is bad, they might actually have deserved a bad fate.
1. People are immensely complicated: their good works should be praised, and their bad works equally recognized, because neither one negates the other.
2. No one deserves to be murdered.
Why are these very specific quotes the primary focus in his death? He has been in public life for essentially 13 years. If you dig through everything he's ever said, you'll find some inflammatory language, sure. Especially when you cherry-pick words from their broader context. You likely would find this to be true with any public figure. But people are using these words to justify his murder. He was not an extremist. Conflating every conservative with extremism only contributes to this type of political violence.
I am so, so glad that I cannot comprehend what it is like to rejoice in someone's death. I cannot relate to those who believe he got what he deserved. People who feel anything other than sorrow or disgust for a man assassinated in front of his wife and young children are soulless and so evil that there truly are no words to describe them. And those same people will claim moral superiority while chastising others for who they voted for.
Homer, you are significantly projecting intent onto myself (and other people). I don't want to assume why that is, or assign any specific motives to your words, but I do need to challenge you to consider why you are escalating this rhetoric so significantly.
If people are using Charlie Kirk's words to "justify his murder" then that is their sin to address. It doesn't mean he never said those words.
"Conflating every conservative with extremism only contributes to this type of political violence." That conflation is categorically not happening here inside this conversation, or the comments to which you are replying.
"I am so, so glad that I cannot comprehend what it is like to rejoice in someone's death." So am I. There is no rejoicing here.
"I cannot relate to those who believe he got what he deserved." I cannot either. That is not happening here.
"People who feel anything other than sorrow or disgust for a man assassinated in front of his wife and young children are soulless and so evil that there truly are no words to describe them." Completely agreed! Also not a thing that is happening here, but if you think that pointing out the words that Charlie Kirk said (out of many, many, many other words and thoughts just like them) makes someone soulless and evil, you've done a far better job at dehumanizing those you disagree with than anyone else has in this conversation.
"And those same people will claim moral superiority while chastising others for who they voted for." Again, it feels as though you are having an intensely emotional response that is projecting a lot of things onto these comments in this conversation. I'm sorry this has been so difficult, but I would ask that you consider stepping away for a bit if you're not able to read what is actually being said with understanding and empathy.
Charlie Kirk was a husband and a father. He was a political provocateur and held many strong beliefs. He challenged himself to conversations with many people who absolutely hated him. He was killed, brutally and unjustly. He also held extremist beliefs. He said cruel, unkind, and callous things, and he contributed to divisive rhetoric. There has always existed groups of public figures, across the political spectrum, who earn their living by deepening divides within their own country. Charlie Kirk was not alone in that pursuit, and I doubt he himself ever understood that's what he was doing, but no peacemaker or bridge-builder forms rhetoric that insults, divides, and demonizes. He was a bright, intelligent person who did not deserve to die, but who does deserve to be understood as a complete and deeply complicated soul.
Of all people Emily is not rejoicing in anyone’s death. Holding space for multiple truths is not the same thing as rejoicing. We can say I deeply disagree with someone and they do not deserve violence or death. I can also not relate to anyone celebrating this or any other death.
I have read this comment several times. I have taken time to look for primary sources that state Charlie Kirk advocated for public executions and couldn't find any. Could you provide your source? Also, as a staunch pro-life advocate, it seems a fallacy to state that he "thought childrens bodies obliterated by bullets was the price you pay for freedom". Though he was a gun rights advocate, as many are, it doesnt equate dead children. We need better gun laws. Less guns.
I have gone back and listened to many of his interviews and interactions. He didnt make fun or call names. He invited conversations. I believe thats what the whole It Starts With Us movement is all about.
He didn't deserve to die.
"He didnt make fun or call names. He invited conversations."
With respect, it seems that a lot of people were not following him on Twitter: https://www.twitterviewer.com/charliekirk11/popular (allows you to view without having an account)
Just three days ago he tweeted that "Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America." He's also tweeted that "The 'Great Replacement' is not a theory. It's reality." and has generally been responsible for spreading a great deal of partisan conspiracy theories: https://www.factcheck.org/person/charlie-kirk/ AND https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?speaker=charlie-kirk
None of that - absolutely NONE OF THAT - justifies his being murdered. Full stop.
But we can also be honest about the legacy that he chose to build, and the rhetoric that he chose to spread, while also standing firm against political violence.
Newsweek reported the following on Feb 24, 2024:
On his weekly panel discussion, "ThoughtCrime," Kirk was discussing death penalties of those convicted of crimes, adding that not only does he believe there should be public executions, but that children should watch them.
"Death penalties should be public, should be quick, it should be televised. I think at a certain age, its an initiation...What age should you start to see public executions?" Kirk asked.
Kirk, along with his co-hosts Jack Posobiec, Tyler Bowyer and Blake Neff, continued to discuss at what age should children watch the public executions, with one co-host pointing out as young as 12 years old.
This post offers a little insight into the conflicted feelings many are having right now
https://open.substack.com/pub/historycanthide/p/thousands-of-gen-zers-dont-feel-bad?r=hvj9q&utm_medium=ios
That was an excellent article! Thank you!🙏🏼
Thank you for sharing. Absolutely 💯 insightful
I am feeling the same.
Booooo
I had never heard what he espoused, but all of what you've mentioned is heinous! If he actually said that about children's bodies, I wonder what he would have thought if it had been his children's bodies.
The exact quote was this: "I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational." (TPUSA event in April 2023)
He said this 8 days after a school shooting in Nashville where three 9-year-olds and three adults were killed, so he was clearly reacting to that event and including children in the gun deaths.
Thank you! I do understand the imagery he was evoking, but I just don't think we need to put words into his mouth (you weren't doing that, but it seemed there was some confusion about exactly what he said and I wanted to clarify).
You're right, and I thank you for the quote. I am frustrated with rhetoric that does not convey the violence involved in "gun deaths", so I included it, thinking of how some of the children killed in Uvalde had to be identified by DNA.
That’s very interesting about GW. A real contradiction, a good man who owned slaves.
I don’t know how many columns I’ve read over the last 24 hours lamenting political violence in this country on both sides and how “we” need to bring down the temperature. What I haven’t seen, except for a brief clip from Elizabeth Warren on CNN, is any mention of Donald Trump, the leader of the free world, and his ugly, violent rhetoric. Trump, the Violence-Monger-in-Chief, who before Kirk’s body was even cold, jumped into the media to blame liberals for everything and threatening punitive actions against not only the perpetrator(s) but any and all groups, organizations, judges, etc., that he thinks aided liberals.
Then he actually had the gall to say:” It’s long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and despicable way possible.” This from the man who repeatedly made jokes about Nancy Pelosi’s husband nearly being beaten to death by one of his supporters. He should look in the mirror and read a transcript of all of the horrible, hateful, demonizing things he’s said throughout his entire life. And his party is made in his exact image. MAGA is the party of glorifying guns and bombs, turning their backs on innocent Palestinians dying every day and innocent Ukrainians dying every day, withdrawing food and medical aid from children and families abroad that has already resulted in thousands of deaths, taking food benefits and healthcare from poor people in the U.S., cutting funds for mental health, addiction and policing programs proven to reduce crime and sending armed to-the-teeth soldiers into American cities as a show of force and intimidation, carrying out extra-judicial executions of people on boats in international waters and celebrating the video of their deaths and instituting a truly stupid and insanely expensive name change of the Dept of Defense to the Dept of War, in some sort of performative, pseudo-warrior, macho display. And last but not least, let’s not forget the lovely MAGA Christmas cards where each man, woman and child in the family lovingly holds his or her AK-47. MAGA gained power and has thus far kept it by encouraging a climate of fear and glorifying and celebrating guns and violence. It is despicable and it trickles down from the very top.
When the leader of the government incites hatred language of his opponents what do they expect? I feel trapped with no way out.
This final paragraph gave me chills.
"Political violence is not a tactic; it is a toxin. Troops in the streets don’t protect us from it, either; they suggest — falsely — that our cities have already fallen and only extreme measures can restore order. The true danger is complacency: assassinations and the partisan attacks that encourage them make violence seem like an acceptable part of civic life. And that’s what will kill the republic."
Yes! It was a perfect paragraph.
I don’t agree with almost everything Charlie Kirk stood for but when we as a nation stop seeing people as human, that’s when we hit a real dangerous, slippery slope. His family was there. Little kids, college students…no one should have to see that.
This shooting isn’t any worse than any other. Am I just as horrified at every school shooting? Every individual or child shot needlessly? The murder of Minnesota House Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark? Absolutely.
The point is to step back and make sure you are not emulating the hate from any side. ‘And that’s what will kill a republic.’
That needs to be an IG post!
As I have said before on other platforms, two or more things can be true. Violence against someone you disagree with and even abhor is wrong. NO ONE should be murdered for their views or even their moral or ethical character. AND we have an epidemic of gun violence that the majority of our country would say, as one commentator has, requires common sense gun restrictions/legislation, not for those who enjoy shooting at a range or are responsible hunters or even those who want a handgun for protection but even in those circumstances common sense checks on the ability to own and use a lethal weapon; waiting periods, red flag laws and restrictions on automatic weapons outside of a controlled environment. AND Equally true is that at least in public CK is not leaving a legacy of kindness to others and respect for all but his rhetoric, couched in the language of faith, has hurt people. He shouldn’t be canonized nor his views celebrated publically. AND we can mourn and feel sadness for his family and a human life lost. Life is complicated, feelings are complicated. Recognizing this helps us be less divided, less prone to react in anger and hate and far less sure that only a chosen few hold all the answers. For today be kind to all. Show respect to all. Be encouraging to all. That should be everyone’s legacy.
Excellent article. Appreciate the insight and perspective.
“Political violence, he warned, does not start with mobs or bayonets. It begins with citizens who come to see those with different views as enemies.”
Such an important reminder. And I feel like tolerance in this political environment is going to be one of the most important lessons of my life.
I found this message very hopeful, thank you for sharing your insights.
I am sickened by what happened yesterday in my home state, on a peaceful university campus in one of the safest places in our nation. I am grateful for the author's timely reminder of George Washington's views on this sort of political violence. I am also incredibly disheartened by the numerous comments here that display almost cavalier vitriol, whether expressed outright or masked. The blaming, the idea that he somehow brought this on himself, the complete lack of empathy that someone's son, father, and husband was taken at 31 for expressing his opinions, has me horrified. No one deserves this. Please, I beg all of us to stop this hateful rhetoric and tap into our innate sense of humanity. We each hold opinions contrary to someone else's. Being safe to express that openly is what we hold dear in this country. We each want that right, which means giving others that right even when, or dare I say, especially when, we have a hard time hearing it. Tolerance, respect, curiosity, and communication are the qualities that will save us. What each of us can do is open a conversation with someone who feels differently than we do and have the decency to listen respectfully, opening our hearts to truly hear their experience. We don't have to agree. We need to give each person (online or in person) the dignity they deserve. If they are acting undignified, hold yourself to a higher standard. It is the only way we will find our way back to civility and safety.
I haven't seen many here saying he deserved this. I am seeing many pointing out that he greatly contributed to the climate in which something like this was possible-- whether in his view that shootings are the price we pay for the 2nd amendment or the divisive and cruel viewpoints he worked to indoctrinate the young with.
Rest in peace, Charlie Kirk. My prayers go out to your wife and your children.
However, today the two factions locked in the struggle are treated by media, and many who should know better, as if both are fighting to take something – power, money, control. The problem is that one party is trying to keep those things for themselves only, and not to give the same benefits, rights, and protections to all the people, while the other is trying to give those things to everyone, not only those who agree with them.
What do we do with this information? Wait and see? Pretend like it is what it is? Help!
I’m sorry, but I absolutely MUST call out this narrative about GW being against political violence. The hypocrisy of stating that while owning human beings as property and forcing their labor for profit, using them to build an economy yet excluding them from being a part of it, excluding them from all human rights, pulling their teeth out their mouths and having them implanted in his—he inflicted MUCH political violence on countless people. What the narrative around Charlie Kirk’s death is telling me is that it’s only political violence when it happens to white people. This shit has been happening for hundreds and thousands of years. I’m so tired of people acting brand new about it.
Hi Sarah—thanks for your comment. My biography is the only mainstream major work that includes slavery in every chapter (instead of a chapter) and ends by dismantling the familiar narrative that he freed his enslaved people at his death.
I've been criticized for centering it too much but never too little tbh!
As for whether being an enslaver disqualifies him from condemning political violence—after years of studying his life, I assure you, and document, that he was both: someone who lived by, and insisted on, the rule of law in politics while perpetuating enslavement in his household. He embodied those contradictions, and that’s the lesson. Complexity isn’t a weakness—it’s the reality we need to look at much more closely. What we don't need to do is make any of them our heroes; that's a personal choice.
I hear what you’re saying Alexis. I appreciate you answering! Glad to know you’ve included those details in your book. I’m just going off what was written in this article. And yes, human beings are complex. What I’m pointing out is that the rule of law and political violence go hand in hand. They are not separate things. Political violence is perpetuated by the rule of law and has been for centuries. In many many cases the rule of law itself is political violence. You can’t separate the 2.
Is not political toxin evident in two political parties that use toxic descriptors of each other in order to justify outreach for contributions?
Was this political violence though? There was a popular post online that said it was not because he was not an elected official or running for office…?
I would think that violence is political if it has a political motive, not just if it's aimed at a politician. We obviously don't know the motive yet, but Charlie Kirk was known for his politics so it's not a stretch to assume his murder was political violence.
I think it’s fair to call it political violence in the same way I would call the assassination of MKL Jr political violence. It was a political podcaster/commentator, holding a political event, discussing political topics. To me, it’s the definition of political violence. You don’t have to be elected to public office to be political. I think you simply have be involved in shaping the political landscape on a largish scale.