In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s murder, accusations flew furiously from “the right” that “left wing radicals” were responsible. And, it might indeed turnout that Sullivan had been radicalized by leftist rhetoric, most likely on increasingly toxic and unhinged social media. We don’t have the facts on that yet, but it hasn’t stopped “the right” from declaring “war” on liberals. Nor did the facts that most lethal political violence since 9-11 –– and this has been documented extensively –– has come from by right-wing individuals. That is not to suggest in any way that there is anything “right” about political violence, whether from the left or the right, but the sad and troubling reality is that more and more Americans agree with the statement that political violence may at times be “necessary.”
But violence of any kind is never “necessary,” unless it is in self-defense of your home or your life or your physical well-being. Believing that something is “necessary,” as Friedrich Nietzsche pointed out, is always an interpretation. It is never a fact of life. The belief that political violence is somehow justified –– beliefs held, evidently, by some on the left and some on the right –– is absolutely and always wrong. Also, scribbling on social media that someone ‘deserved’ to die or joking that “he had it coming” have no place in civilized discourse. But as Tom Nichols wrote in 2022, a “new era of political violence” has overcome this nation. That a growing number of Americans believe that such violence may be necessary is a terrifying notion for those of us who believe in democracy and reasoned discourse on matters of public policy.
It is also wrong to claim that it’s only the radical right or only “the radical left lunatics” (President Trump’s words) that pose a threat to democratic order. Despite Elon Musk’s claim, the Democratic party is not the party of “murder,” and not all who identify politically with the GOP or loved Charlie Kirk are fascist enemies of democracy.
Responsibility is a key concept in ethics, as well as the legal system, where judges and juries often sit to assess “blameworthiness.” In this blog post, I want to set aside the “blame game,” where people are quick to blame “the other side” without substantial evidence. Instead, I want to instead address the praise from many quarters, including Ezra Klein of the New York Times, for Mr. Kirk as an exemplar of “free speech” and “doing politics the right way.” I admire Klein for many things, but here I must disagree.
First, know that “hate speech” is legal in the U.S., though is de-legitimized in many other countries. Was Mr. Kirk a partisan politically? Of course. Did he engage in “legal but wrong” hate speech? Most nations define hate speech as any communication or expression that vilifies, incites hatred, or encourages violence against individuals or groups based on inherent characteristics such as race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or similar identity factors. Kirk’s Turning Point USA events hosted figures linked to white nationalist ideologies, with repeated incidents of racist, homophobic, and transphobic language documented by campus observers and civil rights groups.
Critics have noted his persistent invocation of Christian nationalism and the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory. Contemporary versions of that theory claim that Jewish “elites” (supposedly, people like George Soros or “the globalists” generally) are orchestrating the “replacement” of whites with immigrants of color—something that is sometimes specifically blamed on Jews. (If you are a “globalist,” then America cannot be “first” or “great,” right? So thus are globalists defined by this rhetoric as “the “enemy” of a greater America.)
Both Christian Nationalism and The Great Replacement Theory identify non-Christians and selected Jews as a major threat to this society’s greatness. But does that make it hate speech? There is no legal definition of hate speech in the U.S., precisely because it is legal, even though often quite divisive. Many industrialized democracies, but not the U.S., have laws sanctioning hate speech. But whether Mr. Kirk engaged in hate speech or not, his body of work and his rhetoric generally was effective in identifying “others” as un-American, or a danger to our Republic. And he was not shy about identifying those who were a threat, our second point.
Second: Kirk’s Turning Point USA specifically targeted professors and others that he deemed to be wrong on cultural and political issues. For some professors, this generated threats and fears of personal safety. (Again, all that is perfectly legal, though surely not the ideal of free speech, or even politics the right way. For many years, “the right” grieved about “cancel culture,” where conservative voices in the classroom and elsewhere were silenced by the “politically correct” liberals.) Stacey Patton, a journalist and college professor, recounted receiving weeks of harassment and threats of violence, including rape and death threats, after her name was posted on the list. University security offered her an escort out of fear that threats might escalate from online harassment to physical harm. Professors have reported messages sent to their homes, threats referencing their physical location, and direct instructions like “watch your step.” Other faculty members have similarly faced a torrent of abusive communications, some detailing specific threats against themselves and their families.
Several faculty and free speech organizations have claimed that Turning Point’s Professor Watchlist normalized a climate of harassment and potential violence against academics, and there is credible testimony from affected professors expressing fears for their safety. Accounts from individuals targeted and reports by academic organizations indicate that Kirk was repeatedly informed about the ill-effects of the Watchlist as early as 2016. Turning Point defended the Watchlist as an exercise in free speech and transparency, while dismissing allegations of inciting violence or intimidation, maintaining that its aim was to expose “bias” in academia rather than provoke harm.
So, pro-Kirk partisans could argue that he meant no actual harm and was only countering those “politically correct” professors that squelched more conservative viewpoints, something like “if you’re a cancel culture warrior on the left,” we’ll give you a taste of your own medicine. Still, as my mother used to say, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”
Third, Kirk was clearly and deeply pro-Trump, and the President says he will award him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Here, we must not ignore the reality that Trump has been relentless in squelching free speech of all kinds, and in the process, declaring war on truth itself. To cite several examples, whistleblowers in agencies like the EPA or FEMA have faced retaliation; he has taken down or altered government websites that publish factual information about dangers to health and the environment, he has sought Supreme Court intervention to strengthen presidential control over independent watchdog agencies, testing statutory limits on removals and weakening whistleblower protection frameworks.
Also, the administration has tried to dismiss key officials responsible for protecting whistleblowers, such as the head of the Office of Special Counsel. Trump has initiated investigations over alleged bias, threatened mergers/acquisitions for companies critical of Trump, and issued executive orders explicitly to punish news outlets that don’t comply with White House terminology or coverage preferences (e.g., the “Gulf of America” controversy). He has filed major defamation lawsuits against prominent newspapers and broadcasters and threatened to revoke licenses from media companies with unfavorable coverage. Journalists from established outlets such as The Associated Press, Bloomberg, and Reuters have been barred from White House events and stripped of long-standing reporting rights in favor of newly favored outlets.
In short, Trump is now engaged in a multifaceted “war on truth” through systematic attacks on factual integrity, independent institutions, and public trust in objective reality. He employs misinformation and disinformation tactics to reshape narratives, undermine expertise, and promote himself as the sole arbiter of truth.
And, as to that Presidential medal of freedom, it seems fair to conclude that Mr. Kirk proclaimed the value of free speech but seems to have believed that “freedom” in the U.S. meant a certain kind of conditioned liberty, one that was anchored in whiteness, Christianity, and exclusion of “the other.” The free speech of “liberal professors” is seen as anti-American and, somehow, a threat to all U.S. citizens, who must follow the Professor Watchlist to make sure that young minds are not given anti-American thoughts. Perhaps the “thought police” have shifted from lefty college professors to the alt-right in their zeal to fight the culture wars?
It is both revealing and sad that “liberty” and “free speech” means that you can’t even voice critical opinions about Mr. Kirk. Five days after the murder, more than thirty people have lost their jobs, been put on leave, or faced investigation for making public statements or social media posts about the hatefulness or divisiveness of Charlie Kirk. These individuals include teachers, university staff, healthcare workers, media analysts, and business owners whose remarks were often direct criticisms of Kirk’s rhetoric or observations about the consequences of his influence. Some were terminated immediately, while others remain under employer investigation.[1] To state the obvious, these individuals were engaged in free speech, too, though the constitutional guarantees of the First Amendment apply only to government action, not actors in the private sector.
To conclude, we have come to a dark and dangerous place, where divisive right-wing rhetoric is celebrated, political violence has somehow become accepted as “necessary,” and the power of the government is threatened by Steven Miller, who (unlike college profs) actually wield the power to de-fund, publicly demonize, or even imprison members of an opposing political party. Miller, Deputy Chief of Staff and Trump’s small-minded Rasputin, has even described the Democratic Party as a “domestic terrorism movements” instead of a legitimate political party. Miller has called for measures such as invoking RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), conspiracy charges, accusations of insurrection, and other forms of legal action against progressive groups and individuals whom he claims are fomenting violence or conducting “doxxing campaigns” against right-wing figures.
But the facts provide a different perspective. Most of the fatal political violence in the last ten years has come from the right-wing, not the left. It’s an uncomfortable truth to those who feel besieged by “libtards,” feminists, trans people, immigrants, and more, but it is the truth, nonetheless: Fatalities from right-wing extremist violence—in the post-9/11 era—far exceed those from left-wing attacks, with over 130 deaths attributed to far-right groups, compared to only one murder attributed to left-wing causes.
Divisive speakers and politicians will not bring us together as a nation of diverse individuals. Regrettably, we may be at a tipping point here, where a sense of panic has gripped “the right” and an attitude of “it’s either us or them” has gained far too much traction. As Elon Musk wrote after the murder of Mr. Kirk, “The violence is going to come to you. You will have no choice. This is a, this is, you’re in a fundamental situation here where you, where, whether you choose violence or not. The violence is coming to you. You either fight back or you die. You either the fight back or you die. And that’s the truth.”
As the politicians say after every school shooting, which now average twice a week, “thoughts and prayers.” We must indeed pray, but our thoughts must also be rational, lest we lose a worthy tradition of free speech on important matters of public concern. I pray that all of us search for the truth, reject “hot lips and rhetoric” and shun divisive (and clearly false) social rhetoric like Elon Musk’s on social media.
We would all do well to “log off, turn off, touch grass, hug a family member, go out and do good in your community” as Utah governor Spencer Cox recommended. Find good people who think differently than you do. Learn what they have to say, consider whether they have the facts, and avoid calling them names or thinking of them as a “threat” to your way of life. That is politics the right way.