I keep hearing in the MSM that Charlie Kirk was “divisive” and “polarizing,” two of their favorite words for any figure on the right. What do these pundits really mean when they call Kirk that? They mean that he said things with which they disagree. That’s the “divisive” part. The “polarizing” part means he succeeded in convincing some young people that the leftist point of view might not make as much sense as they’d previously thought.
Oh, and he was up-front about being a Christian. And pro-Israel. And a proponent of what not long ago was so basic as to be universally accepted, but is now considered by the left to be “hate speech” – that there are only two sexes and that, when born as either one or the other, a person cannot switch.
The left has long been about stifling free speech once their own numbers reach a certain critical mass. Because of many decades of the leftist Gramscian march though our cultural and educational institutions, that mass was reached some time ago and the left is determined to silence voices on the other side. For quite a while, cancel culture was the method. But that segued into murder, and the killing of people who are dangerous to the left because of their voices or because of their stances or jobs is now not only accepted and excused by a broad segment of the left, but applauded and celebrated.
Many people have pointed out that there’s quite a bit of that going on at various social media sites such as Reddit, which comes as no surprise.
Kirk was especially dangerous to the left because he was so effective on campus, with young people. His work there may even have been responsible (at least in part) for putting Donald Trump over the top in 2024:
Kirk also was unfailingly polite, respectful, and good-natured when he argued. I don’t know how he did it, but he did it with earnestness and a smile and never seemed to get angry. And yet it hasn’t kept the left from characterizing him as hateful. Fortunately, his videos remain to tell a different tale.
This death is less like an assassination of an officeholder and more like a terrorist attack, because it seems meant to frighten and silence rather than to stop someone in a governmental position. Was the killer Antifa, pro-Hamas, anti-Christian, trans – who and what and exactly why? While it’s theoretically possible that Kirk wasn’t killed by a leftist, I think it’s extremely likely that he was. But at any rate, many leftists are celebrating his death.
This pro-assassination culture on the left has been going on for many years, but Trump’s tenure seems to have caused the left to escalate it exponentially. I noticed it from the beginning of Trump’s first term, when suddenly I was hearing many references by some Democrats I know (not even leftists, by the way) expressing their wish for Trump to die or be killed. They said it without apology or any seeming sense that what they said was wrong. The desire had already been normed, or even seen as a sign of virtue.
A few months ago, someone I’ve known since childhood (although we’re not especially close) told me that if she had a terminal disease she’d get a gun and try to kill Trump. Fortunately, she seems healthy enough. But it didn’t sound like a joke; not that she would do it even if ill, but she was expressing a very strong wish. And I can attest to the fact that, until Trump was elected, she was politically moderate.
It will take quite some time for the effects of Kirk’s death to become apparent. But I think the author of this piece, that appeared in The Federalist, has a good point when she writes, “Kirk wasn’t just assassinated. He was also martyred.” I wouldn’t be at all surprised if opposition to Kirk’s strong Christian beliefs, which formed a core part of his identity, was a significant part of the assassin’s motive for killing him.
And yes, the assassin did evil and many on the left advocate evil – including my old friend. It’s shocking, but true, and – as often happens with evil – one of the most shocking things is that they think they’re advocating good.
Many of you are old enough to remember the assassinations of the 1960s. I certainly am. There was a feeling of things spiraling out of control. But this seems worse, and I’ll tell you why: the left has grown stronger and more numerous rather than weaker. And social media is a very potent factor in its spread. Charlie Kirk was instrumental as a counterforce, and he will be very sorely missed.