Reflecting on Charlie Kirk’s Assassination and Our Hostile Political Climate

As someone who recently had the privilege of founding the Ivy League’s first Turning Point USA chapter, I was incredibly enthusiastic about our group’s debut this fall. In fact, this past July, I attended the TPUSA Student Action Summit, where I was invited to have breakfast with Charlie Kirk himself. It was at this meeting that I learned he was planning on coming to Dartmouth to debate Hasan Piker on what would have been this past September 25^th. That is, of course, until a tolerant leftist murdered him in front of thousands of students at Utah Valley University.

Even though the utter shock I initially felt has worn off, it remains incredibly hard for me to process that – just like that – the conservative icon and TPUSA founder is gone. The man who promoted discourse and encouraged people to challenge his beliefs was the most effective in advertising the conservative movement to the youth. It’s ironic, of course, that he was a fascist who needed to die. There is a reason that Charlie – of all conservatives – was the target of political violence. He is nearly irreplaceable. Politicians like a governor or a U.S. Senator are important, and their decisions directly affect the lives of citizens. However, Charlie was no politician. What he said or did had no effect on the lives of leftists. On a grand scale, what Charlie was doing was more influential than the work of any singular politician. He was the leader of a movement. Instead of changing policy, he changed minds. 

The shooter waited until Charlie was discussing recent ideologically driven transgender violence. It was at this moment that the shooter, whose sexual partner happens to be a transitioning male-to-female, used a single-shot bolt-action sniper rifle to silence his opposition. I’m not sure what’s more ironic: the timing of the shooting, or the fact that on one of the unfired shell casings, it wrote “Hey Fascist! Catch!” The act of murdering a political opponent is, of course, the perfect example of what fascism seeks to accomplish. 

It is true that in a land of millions, there will be those crazy enough to go the distance and pull the trigger. Charlie’s killer was one of those people. However, most human beings, no matter how evil they portray their political opponents, are not willing to commit murder. Nevertheless, this does not mean that they do not consider their opponents to be better off dead. The disgusting reactions to Kirk’s death have been representative of this widespread hatred that plagues the left. Of course, this is not to say a majority of the left, but a dangerously large percentage. I like to think the majority are willing to put politics aside, condemn the murder, and condemn political violence – especially when targeted at a person who did nothing more than voice their mainstream opinions. And yes – the opinions held by half the country are, in fact, mainstream. However, many of the reactions to Kirk’s assassination have been disturbing. This holds true, even if you didn’t like Kirk’s aggressive debating style

However, there are a few more ways in which the left has responded. The first has been to celebrate or mock Kirk’s murder. Unsurprisingly, our school’s Fizz is a great way to view our peers’ classless statements. He is compared to Hitler, condemned to hell, and considered a bigot. Jokes about protesting or streaking the vigil for Kirk held by TPUSA Dartmouth and the Dartmouth Conservatives can also be found on the social media platform. It’s no surprise that leftists feel the need to celebrate the murder of a high-profile political opponent. But the second and more common reaction they seem to be having to Charlie’s murder is, rather, a dismissal of his death. It is supposedly ironic. A man who doesn’t believe in gun control is slain by a gun. Comments like “Fyi if Charlie Kirk were still alive, he’d defend the rights of his attempted assassin to own the gun.” The implied argument of this comment is ridiculous.  However, the statement itself is not necessarily inaccurate. After all, the alternative would be that if Charlie knew he was going to die by a bullet, he would be alive, arguing that we should ban single-shot bolt-action rifles. I do doubt this would be the case, yes.

Another common reaction has been to assume that Kirk’s pro-Second Amendment political stance means he must be in support of the senseless school shootings that plague our nation. “Gun violence spares no one” is one of the political slogans capitalizing on his death. This is a way to politicize his murder, essentially telling the right that “this is all your fault” or that “you promoted the policies that enable these sorts of killings to take place.” Of course, Kirk and the right do not advocate for the murder of innocent children. For the left to blame those deaths on a political opponent who just got assassinated is insensitive and shortsighted. But it is also incorrect. First and foremost, gun control does not and will not work. Of course, even if it did, the only policy that would have prevented Kirk’s death would have required the simplest form of a firearm to be banned. But no one who believes in the Second Amendment is in favor of murder of any kind. They do, however, believe that in a nation of more than 350 million firearms, anyone who wished to kill Kirk or innocent children would find a way to do so. Although the data is scarce, based on one California study conducted by the American Medical Association, 63% of firearm homicides are committed by those who illegally acquired their firearm (essentially meaning they were already a convicted felon). I can’t imagine how high that number would be if we took a look at Chicago alone, where there are some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

As it relates, specifically, to the senseless mass killings and left-wing-dominated political violence, mental illness is a key component. But much of this mental illness can, too, be attributed to purposelessness and hatred, perpetrated by the rise of modern social liberalism. It comes from the rise in atheism, the deemphasis of the family unit, the meaninglessness of sex, and the indoctrination of our children. They are taught to hate, mope, and permanently alter their bodies when their teenage years become confusing. With the absence of God and the purposelessness that results from embracing modernity, hatred and passionate politics have filled the void. When the individual comes to realize that he/she is worthless, they throw away their life for a cause or, simply, to take out the wrath that a meaningless life has given to them.

Mental health is an issue. Guns will never go away. Criminals will always acquire weapons. The result of gun control is an unarmed society of law-abiding citizens that can neither protect themselves from criminals nor the threat of tyrannical government (the real reason for the Second Amendment). The issue of gun violence requires us to come up with real solutions. Kirk understood this. He did not value guns over lives; he valued reason over stupidity. As it relates to schools, Kirk assumed the position that America puts more emphasis on protecting banks or sporting events than our children (this is what he was saying in the notoriously taken out-of-context quote). Jewish schools often have armed security to protect against crazed antisemites; why don’t all our schools? If we want to childishly blame our opponents for the deaths of innocent children, I could say that the left has spent so much time arguing for the phony “solution” of gun control that they have ignored pursuing real means of protecting children (like armed security). So, maybe, the blood is on the hands of the left. Of course, unlike the left, this is not how I typically would pursue a debate. But, when I come to think of it, it’s true.

The other way in which I have observed the dismissal of Kirk’s murder is through the comparison of his assassination to that of Minnesota Representative Melissa Hortman. The left claims that the right didn’t care when it was one of their own who was murdered by someone who can be assumed to be a right-wing extremist. First, this is not true. The murder and subsequent manhunt were the top news story for days. Unlike the left, there was no dismissal of the murder by the right, and certainly no one was celebrating. It is mainstream for the right not to resort to violence nor condone it. So yes, the two cases are very different. Even more so, while both assassinations were equally as evil in the eyes of God, Kirk’s murder was committed in front of thousands of students for the whole world to watch. There, too, is a reason the right has been so devastated and shocked by this murder. 

The fact of the matter is that, unlike the internet attempted to convince us after Kirk’s murder, the left does commit more political violence than the right. They have a culture for it. Now, when only accounting for political murders, the “right” commits more murders overall (although left-wing homicides have increased recently). Realistically, this is unfair as the “right” in this category includes white supremacist murders, which are not in the name of any mainstream cause (unlike the left’s murders). But, when “violence” includes the cities that are burned, the businesses destroyed, the windows broken, the torched cars, the Antifa attacks, the churches and synagogues vandalized, the other left-wing antisemitic attacks, then it indeed becomes clearer that violence has become a widespread tool utilized by the left to express their opinions. The right, on the other hand, holds vigils and encourages discourse.

The left celebrates and participates in political violence. But the question is, why? Mainstream left-wing rhetoric is responsible for radicalizing a large percentage of Americans into believing that the murder of a political opponent who was promoting dialogue is justified. Perhaps it has to do with their idea that “words are violence” or that Kirk’s ideas can simply be dismissed as being “hateful,” end of discussion. The media loves to brand Kirk, Trump, and Republicans as Nazis, deplorables, fascists, threats, and even evil. Trump might push constitutional boundaries, but to say that he and half the nation are Nazis is tasteless and false. It makes sense: the left is the side of passion. It is why young college students have historically been so drawn to it. Getting leftists to personally hate their opponents is the most effective way to mobilize support for their causes and candidates. Unlike the right, which believes the left is “stupid,” “misguided,” or “indoctrinated,” the left thinks the right is a genuine danger that must be stopped. It makes sense: the mainstream right does not wish death upon those who are stupid, misguided, and indoctrinated. That is an overcorrection. The solution is to encourage dialogue. After all, we know our ideas are correct, and we are willing to discuss them. No matter how many mean names Trump might call his political opponents, there isn’t a great warrant for their murder along ideological lines. But if you object that those on the left support political violence more than the right. If you really believe this, ask yourself, why wouldn’t a fascist Nazi bigot be better off dead? I’m a conservative, and I wouldn’t miss one. Why wouldn’t Charlie’s assassination be worth celebrating? Perhaps it is because it would be irresponsible rhetoric to call Charlie a “fascist Nazi bigot.” 

But who are we, the students of the right? Who are we that the left is taught to hate? Who are the “threats” and the “fascists” who pose a risk to our “democracy?” Anyone who believes in dangerous ideas like capitalism, gender binarism, and closed borders is a threat to the liberal order. Those who are most dangerous are the activists. Who are the activists?… They are the hundreds of thousands to millions of students involved with Turning Point USA. That’s why Charlie Kirk was a target… not because he was a politician implementing policies that the shooter didn’t agree with. It was because he was the leader of a movement whose goal is to change minds through open discourse. 

What is incredibly interesting is how the right has responded to this tragedy. Of course, this is a radicalizing event, and we can only expect political tensions to increase. However, the right has responded gracefully. Vigils have been set up all across the country. Social events and calls to prayer have erupted, all to celebrate Charlie Kirk’s life and the mission that will continue. Days before Charlie’s murder, the story erupted over a young white girl, Iryna Zarutska, who was murdered in a racially charged attack. The right was outraged and yet – unlike the left’s response to George Floyd, who overdosed on Fentanyl – the right’s response has not been to burn down cities and loot businesses.

It has become evidently clear that the left has become the side of extreme hatred. And while this is only a smaller portion of the overall left, it is much too large a concern to be ignored. All those interested in politics have our convictions, and a bit of “hate” is natural to be found in all of us. Yet, what it is that we hate – or ought to hate – is another question. For example, I hate socialism, gun control, and the idea of America as a country with unchecked mass migration. If you believe that we should be a country with socialism, gun control, and unchecked mass migration, I do not hate you. I am certainly willing to have a conversation with you. However, if you hate me because I am a capitalist, because I support the Second Amendment, or because I support strictly “legal” migration, may God have mercy on your soul.

This is the precise line by which radical leftists (of which there are a shocking number on this campus and in this nation) pose an actual danger to our republic. I do not fear leftists or their ideas. I believe my convictions would triumph when put to the test of legitimate debate. I dream of an academic environment where personal hate is nonexistent… where we – as a Dartmouth community – can discuss communism, guns, immigration, and more, but without the animosity.

As it stands right now, this environment does not yet exist. What I currently have is fear. I fear those who are not willing to debate… those who are not willing to respect me as an individual… those who are willing to take Charlie’s life for a “greater” purpose. This is the danger. This is why now, as America approaches her 250^th birthday, we are closer than ever to breakdown or even a second civil war. There is a dangerous and unsustainable mindset that plagues this nation. I only fear the cancer will continue to spread.