The Staying Power of the Charlie Kirk Story
And the conflict around condemning political violence
In the era of Donald Trump, there are few stories that have managed to linger for more than a week. Since he first forayed into the political arena, each breaking news development has been reliably buried by an onslaught of new Trump-centered controversies.
In his second term, the Jeffrey Epstein scandal was the first story to really break free from that mold. Entire months after the firestorm was reignited, it’s a topic that people continue to furiously debate. Considering all of the celebrities and politicians purportedly named in the Epstein files, it’s no wonder why the story has remained such a centerpiece in our country’s conscience. The Trump administration’s repeated bungling of the issue has only added fuel to the inferno.
But Kirk’s assassination has grown into an even bigger story still. Nearly two weeks after the act of violence occurred, its ripple effects have only become increasingly pronounced. As people across the country are being fired for voicing their opinions on the incident, from ordinary citizens to late night personalities like Jimmy Kimmel, the story’s momentum has hardly waned. (Since starting work on this article, it’s been announced that the late night host will rightfully be resuming his position.)
Some of the reasons that the story has persisted aren’t hard to grasp. His assassination was broadcast live, and footage of the sniper’s bullet entering his neck have been seared into our collective minds.
His murder has lent itself to a host of rumors and conspiracy theories across the board. Some view it as proof that the anti-fascist ideology is one of terrorism. That the LGBTQ+ community is what killed Kirk. Others view it as the inevitable end that befalls people who disseminate such hateful rhetoric. “Live by the sword, die by the sword.” If you preach that the mass casualties that gun violence claims are mere collateral damage, then you’re willing to become one of those casualties.
Others see a false flag operation. They consider Kirk’s murder as a 3D chess move from an administration that’s content claiming martyrs if it furthers their cause. Some see suspicious timing in Kirk’s denouncements of Israel and believe that his death is directly at the hands of Israeli operatives who viewed his words as a threat to their agenda.
I think much of the reason this story has lingered for such a comparatively long time is because of the sheer diversity of opinions that have emerged.
One of the few points on which most seem to agree is that political violence should be condemned at all costs. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike have clung to the stance that, regardless of Kirk’s beliefs, no one deserves to be killed in front of their family. Yet I can’t help but see an air of inauthenticity in the people making that argument. The statement appears to stem more from a sense of obligation than earnest belief.
Some progressives have made the point that few would bat an eye at the idea of killing Hitler. I’ve also seen people liken Kirk to Osama bin Laden, pointing out that there’s a profound asymmetry between the way we’ve treated the demise of the two figures. “Yo guys i know its 9/11, and bin Laden did terrible things and all, but Seal Team 6 took a father away from his kids. Not cool, thoughts and prayers,” wrote Ben NoPockets Slater in a Facebook post a day after the murder took place.
In my eyes, one of the biggest reasons that this story has remained a part of our discourse — for what feels like an eternity in the era of the 24-hour news cycle — is that even seemingly obvious ideas, like that “political violence is bad,” crumble upon further inspection. The truth is that almost everyone believes that political violence, to some degree or another, is necessary when the right circumstances are met.
Whether Charlie Kirk’s anti-humanist beliefs necessitated execution is more debatable than many would like to admit. He was a victim of the unfettered gun access he advocated for. He was a martyr for a cause that he claimed time and time again to believe in.
In years, it’s a reasonable assumption that he would have risen to become an even more prominent figure in the public eye, entered politics, and legislated on his most heinous beliefs. It wasn’t out of line with the trajectory that he established for himself. And were he able to assume high office and pass laws that render his most odious ideas into binding legal contracts, it’s hard to say how people should have responded. As a mere public speaker, his beliefs sowed prejudices that led to hate crimes — and even cost lives. His very death is proof of it.
Of course, we can’t advocate for murder just because of what people might have become down the road. Given some of Kirk’s recent statements about the war crimes of Israel, it’s fair to surmise that he was evolving. That he was disgusted by the notion of a million people starving and deprived of aid.
In hindsight, it’s easy to say what could have been. To wish that Hitler had been assassinated before he rose to power. But if he were killed before the horrors of the Nazi regime ever came to pass, people of the day would have likely viewed his demise not only as senseless, but as a call to action. Some would have found validation of his most discriminatory beliefs in learning that someone could be forever silenced for simply espousing them. A select few may have tried to capitalize on Hitler’s momentum and become even worse tyrants still.
It’s a story we’ve seen play out time and time again in each new claim that “the powers that be don’t want you to know about so and so!” In Facebook and Twitter’s decision to censor Trump in the aftermath of January 6th, we saw the emergence of Truth Social. People watched as new echo chambers across the internet began to proliferate. Since Kirk’s death, we’ve witnessed the anti-trans crusader become more than he ever was in life. And we’ve seen the chasms in our country widen to a near-breaking point as all of our conflicting narratives have begun to spar.
Given the sheer number of directions Kirk’s life could have gone, it’s easy to understand why this conversation is still taking place, and why so few people are in agreement about what his assassination even means. In time, he might have redeemed himself and become a champion for good. He might have reconsidered his most prejudicial beliefs when challenged on the debate floor by the right opponent. Or he might have gone on to be a tyrant, and by the time he was, we may have been unable to prevent him from wielding his power in horrible ways. We can never truly know.
Well done! Great article, Ben. You did two things I appreciate: (1) making the Hitler analogy work, and (2) quoting the amazing Ben NoPockets Slater.