Your Dislike of Charlie Kirk Is Not Interesting Right Now
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In the aftermath of the shooting death of Charlie Kirk, I can’t stop thinking about a survey a few weeks ago from the new liberal publication The Argument. The survey included the question: “Do you think having opposing political views is ever an acceptable reason to cut off contact with a family member?” And 40% of 2024 Harris voters said yes, compared to just 11% of Trump voters and 18% of respondents who didn’t vote.
“I think liberals have got to understand that we, as a constituency, are very much unlike the rest of America,” wrote Lakshya Jain, The Argument’s director of political data and polls. “It’s not just that we’re different from Trump voters — it’s that we’re very different from people who don’t vote as well. The findings about who was more likely to cut off friends and family over politics really underscored this for me, because Harris voters were the only group that was even close to evenly split on that. That’s not a statement that we’re wrong , but it is a statement that the rest of Americans view and interact with the world very differently than we do.”
At least these days, liberals are much more fixated than conservatives on politics as a barometer of morality. To have the correct political views is an important part of what it is to be a good person, and if a person has the wrong opinions, that’s a moral offense, and a valid reason to cut them off.
Of course, politics is necessarily a moral project. It matters who wins elections and it matters what the government does, because public policies have important effects that can run with or against our values. Everyone should understand that this isn’t some game. But at the same time, we live in a pluralistic society, and we need to be able to share a sense of national identity with people whose values might differ from our own in important ways. So we need a public that takes politics seriously, but not too seriously.
I’ve been thinking about that poll question because of the bifurcated response I’ve seen among liberals to Kirk’s killing. Among liberals who “do” politics for a living, I’ve seen near-uniform expressions of horror and revulsion. I have seen a surprising amount of grief . In addition to being a logical human response to the fact that a husband and father of two children was murdered, I think this reflects an understanding that political violence is dangerous for everyone. In some cases, it’s an expression of professional empathy — as Ezra Klein writes , he and Kirk were in some sense in the same business, and that business is now more dangerous than it used to be. And I think it also reflects, at least implicitly, an understanding that responding to a conservative’s murder by fixating on how bad and gross his ideas were would be a political loser, just making liberals seem weird and callous and obsessive and off — especially given the likelihood that the murder was itself committed as an expression of objection to those ideas.
But among liberals who are mostly spectators to politics… hoo boy. They have seemed weird and callous and obsessive and off, unable to stop themselves from responding to Kirk’s very-likely-ideologically-motivated murder by harping on how bad his ideology was.
I make good choices about who I follow, and I don’t think I saw organically in any of my feeds a liberal celebrating Kirk’s death, though I did see conservatives surface quite a few examples of liberals doing this. I did see, across platforms, a handful of posters who apparently thought his death was funny. But what I saw a lot of was liberals who felt the really important thing to discuss about Kirk, right after he was killed, was how wrong he was. Either that he was wrong about gun control, and was now paying the price for this; or that he was hateful about various social issues (especially ones to do with race and gay rights) and that everyone needed to remember this right now.
The norm against speaking ill of the recently deceased exists to benefit the living: people are grieving, and it is both rude and cruel to compound their grief by telling them what was wrong with the person they just lost. When liberals respond to Kirk’s murder with jeers for him (and with outrage over institutional displays of mourning of his death — I have seen a lot of complaints about institutions in blue states that have lowered flags to half mast for his death 1 ) they are saying that he and his supporters are undeserving of the usual consideration that we provide to each other in our society.
This is an extension of the view that having the right politics is very morally important: people who get politics wrong are worse people, and they deserve worse treatment. In many liberals’ view, Kirk already breached the social contract with his offensive views and comments, and his fans breached the social contract by agreeing with him. Why would these people deserve consideration when they haven’t extended it?
There are a few problems with this outlook, with one obvious one being that if nearly half the electorate is in breach of your social contract, it’s not much of a social contract. Another is that, as Jain notes above, it’s a worldview that creates a wedge between liberals and everybody else, which poses a problem for fostering enduring support for the liberal ideas whose moral importance is the supposed point of taking the morally rigid stance in the first place.
But there’s also a particular problem with that worldview right now, which is that the shooter appears to have been a liberal who took the moral importance of having the right ideas too seriously. I describe him like that advisedly, because what we’ve learned about his motivations looks different than what we often see in these sorts of cases.
Very often, when people commit spectacular acts of political violence, their accounts of why they did so are difficult to map onto a political project. They fail to fit neat ideological boxes, like Thomas Crooks, who appeared to also research opportunities to kill Joe Biden before finding an opportunity to shoot Donald Trump. They announce grandiose ideas, like would-be assassin Ryan Wesley Routh, who thinks he should fight Trump in a golf match to the death. Even Luigi Mangione’s “manifesto” amounted to something of a hand-wave, saying in regard to the ideological urges that led him to kill a health care executive that “obviously the problem is more complex, but I do not have space, and frankly I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument.”
But the text messages between Tyler Robinson and his former roommate that investigators have released show a simple and clear explanation of why he shot Charlie Kirk.
“I had enough of his hatred,” he wrote. “Some hate can’t be negotiated out.”
This observation about the killer’s motive is inconvenient enough that lots of liberals are in denial about it — they prematurely declared that the killer actually objected to Kirk from the right and then they looked away when presented with evidence that showed that wasn’t so. Jimmy Kimmel suggested that Robinson was part of the “MAGA gang” — an error 2 that has led to a preposterously unconstitutional but apparently successful effort by Trump’s FCC to force Kimmel off the air. After the texts expressing a liberal motive came out, liberal influencers declared them to be fake .
This deliberate looking away from the most likely explanation of why Robinson shot Kirk reminds me of the preposterous claims (ones I still hear periodically from normie libs) that Donald Trump staged last July’s assassination attempt against himself. And we’ve of course seen conservatives do this, too: inventing the ideas that State Rep. Melissa Hortman was shot by a leftist, and that Paul Pelosi’s assailant was his gay lover. People do this because the shooter’s motive matters. If someone engages in violence on behalf of a political movement, that’s a demerit to the movement. It doesn’t mean that people have to give up their ideologies, or even that they have to give up speaking passionately on behalf of those ideologies, when political violence comes from one’s own “side.” But it is at least a reason to pause and reflect on how someone might have gotten so stirred up, and to give some space to the other side to grieve. Partisans seem to understand that political violence from their “side” would create a reason for such a pause, which is why they look for fake stories to avoid admitting when it happens.
Tags
Who is online
150 visitors
Wise words from a progressive who has retained some decency and self-awareness.
This should be the most obvious sentiment ever:
Sadly, too many progressives have been replaced this common sense understanding with knee jerk fealty to their religion/party and they will say anything in service of it.
Is the right wing religious fundies portraying Kirk as speaking from beyond the grave and essentially describing himself as a martyr on the level of Peter and Paul "normal" to you?
Nope. But its not hurting anyone or trying to justify hurting anyone either.
Who is people making fun of Charlie Kirk hurting? The people it would supposedly hurt say everyone to their left are scum anyway.
Try reading the article again. If you still can't understand why mocking someone who was assassinated in front of their wife and kids a few days ago is an asshole move, I don't know what else to say. I don't remember ever not understanding that.
I have said many times here that Charlie Kirk did not deserve to die for things that he says. I say it again now. That doesnt mean people need to sit by and watch him get canonized either.
Did "the left" kill Charlie Kirk ? I thought it was one guy whose motives, in terms of ideology , are still not clear. The You Tuber "leftist" Destiny had a good point in a video I saw - if the killer was radicalized into being a far left assassin, where is the evidence on social media? People who radicalized like that leave a trail , of comments, tweets, tik tok, instagram, etc. They do not keep their ideological conversion to themselves.
Is it possible that his desire to kill Kirk was personal and not ideological? If you are on the right this isnt even worth considering. "The left" did it.
You are citing someone who claims it's good for conservative speakers to be afraid of being murdered when they speak publicly just so we are clear where we are at.
His explanation of those comments is more involved than that, what he says is that conservatives dont seem to be afraid of a civil war and they should be.
Destiny was asked to denounce Kirk's assassination a few times. However, the political streamer refused to do it. He said that conservatives need to be “afraid of getting killed when they go to events so that they can look to their leadership to turn down the temperature.”
You want to defend someone who can't even denounce an assassination?
Charlie Kirk SAID that Joe Biden deserved the death penalty. Is that normal to you?
Did he deserve to die for that?
The point is that since Kirk was killed, the big mouths on the right deliberately act as if
a) Kirk never said anything inflammatory about "the left"
b) "The left" is celebrating his death 24/7
c) Trump is innocent in regards to what is going on in this country
Its ludicrous. If you want a "civil debate" tell Trump to shut the fuck up. Send him a telegram today.
MAGAs want the left to be civil but they support the most uncivil president in history. This insanity is wearing on everyone's nerves.
Well, normal people say no, but the guy that killed Kirk thought so. What is interesting is you see more leftists condemning Kirk than you do his killer.
Matter of fact, I don't think I have seen any leftist condemning the killer.
Clearly some people believe so, even if they know better than to admit it.
When you call for death, you might fall prey to it. It is a two-way street. Tone is everything. You seem to forget that. And that is the problem now—extreme language and extreme feelings.
I was watching Bill Mahers show last night. One of the guests was Joe Manchin , who seems to have dyed his hair black. Which is weird as hell since he is 78 years old.
Anyway, his big pitch on this show was that everyone should help President Trump succeed. People like him and anyone who thinks Trump should "succeed" has lost their frigging mind. The ONLY thing Trump wants to succeed at is getting richer and staying out of jail.
When are people going to realize that the only thing we should trying to do is get rid of Trump? THEN, we can try to go to the "middle".
More partisan / ideological exploitation of Kirk's assassination. This is sickening.
Remember - you have two choices - read it or don't read it.
No, I can also read it and opine. If that is a problem for you, you can make a pointless comment, make a thoughtful comment, or silently move on.
It's been 9 days. He's not even been buried yet, do you think people should just let it go and move on?
I think people should not use a tragedy for political / ideological purposes. It routinely happens, but I think it is a disgusting practice.
This is the progressive's opinion you want to denounce? Progressives lying about the assassin's beliefs, Kirk's words and vandalizing monuments doesn't merit a complaint but a progressive saying:
is sickening to you??
Yet again you create an argument and then try to ascribe it to me. Yet again with intellectual dishonesty.
What is sickening to me is the exploitation of Kirk's assassination for partisan/ideological reasons.
I'm sorry, I thought your post was on topic and a response to the seeded article.
sickening to me is the exploitation of Kirk's assassination for partisan/ideological reasons
That you choose to make this declaration in response to a progressive decrying partisan attacks on recently murdered people was your choice, no one else's.
Try honestly rebutting my points, and especially in the context in which they are written, instead of creating strawman arguments.
Posting this "More partisan / ideological exploitation of Kirk's assassination. This is sickening." in response to a progressive opposing the slandering a recent victim of assassination is the context. It's the choice you made. I'm just highlighting what you think is sickening as it is so extreme as to rebut itself.
But feel free to expound on exactly which part of Barro's argument you find so sickening. Personally, I think a progressive or conservative trying to calm the political temperature and deescalate should be applauded, but that's who I am.
This piece is a criticism of liberals and not of conservatives. It exploits the Kirk assassination for ideological criticism, and I am confident that you seeded it knowing full well the net message.
So cut the shit.
[deleted][✘]
They Are Lying About Charlie Kirk. | Candace Ep 235
Candace Owens (and Michael Savage, another conservative podcaster) throw's 'shade' on Charlie Kirk's death. . . and it will surprise you (to the very end of the video) that she does not mention the words, "the LEFT" (as the narrative goes from the Right) not once here. That is, it is clear she is not buying the 'narrative' that is attempting to be sold by Trump and MAGA supporters to stir up hate against liberals.
Candace Owens does not believe "the Left" had anything to do with her friend Charlie's death. Check out the video.
The 'in-fighting' is occurring inside their 'political' house.
As always you can speed up >>> the hour-long video using Youtube's "Setting" feature on the video frame .
Are you citing Candace Owens favorably?
Meaning what exactly? This is not about me.
It's a video of her show. . .she speaks for herself! Personally, I detest Candace Owens. And yet, I listened. Honestly, I am surprised by her commentary. It's her words to her fellow conservatives on the airways. Listen and give your opinion of your fellow conservative's take on Kirk's death!
I assume you find value in it if you posted it. I don't find value in the rantings of a crazy person so I'm not going to waste my time with it.
I am so very extraordinarily happy that you did not try to drag me into a 'shoot the messenger' state. /S
Also, now a Turning Point 'family' and friend of Charlie Kirk is in your words, 'a crazy person.' I have always stated that MAGA would shun and label anybody that dares to break with the status quo as a CINO. Here we go with Candace being discounted! Well, Michael Savage, is in this video too and he is another 'crazy person.'
Epistemological ignorance is tangible in some quarters, but not here - of course. /s
She resigned in 2019 and Kirk "broke up with her" after she went crazy.
Here we go with Candace being discounted!
You are free to defend her credibility all you want. Apparently this is out of your experience, but I don't feel compelled to agree with or respect the opinions of people I think are crazed liars, just because they are supposedly on my "side." Too bad that's not more widespread.
I have no idea what you choose to go on about as a distraction. This video is after the death of Charlie Kirk and I am sure Candace Owens knows what happened in 2019 and how she feels in 2025. . . as she states in the video you declare you will not watch. . . Charlie Kirk and she were friends-renewed friendship or not-and traded communications up to his death. . .deal with it or 'bust.'