On Charlie Kirk's Assasination
Radicals, whether on the left or the right, must be disavowed, whether they belong to the woke right or the woke left
The shocking news of Charlie Kirk's assassination today at a college campus in Utah is a moment of profound national tragedy and a chilling reminder of the dangers of political polarization. It is a moment that should give everyone pause, regardless of their political affiliations or how they felt about the man himself.
Reports indicate that Kirk, a prominent conservative firebrand and a close ally of US President Donald Trump, was speaking at a Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University when a single shot was fired, striking him and ending his life.
The details of the shooting are still emerging, but what is clear is that this was an act of political violence—a deliberate attempt to silence a voice through the most brutal means imaginable.
Condemnation has been swift and, for the most part, bipartisan. This is a positive development. It is a testament to the fact that, at least in some quarters, there is still a shared understanding that a society that resolves its differences with bullets instead of ballots is a society that has lost its way.
The vitriol and animosity that define the current political climate have spilled into the real world with lethal consequences.
Make no mistake, Charlie Kirk was, without a doubt, a deeply polarizing figure.
His rhetoric was often inflammatory, divisive, and to many, deeply offensive.
Kirk built his career on being a polemicist and a hate-monger, particularly targeting immigrants, non-Christians, and anyone who challenged his narrow vision of America, increasingly becoming radical towards the second Trump administration.
His attempts to throw around spiritual phrases and jargon seldom compensated for his harmful rhetoric and views.
Kirk became a loud champion of culture wars and a relentless critic of what he and his followers branded “wokeism,” but at the same time, he paradoxically made himself part of the emerging woke-right.
But that does not make him deserving of death or make his assassination any less condemnable.
To peacefully and legally disavow the inflammatory, un-American, revisionist, and dishonest nature of his ideas is not only fair — it is a necessary step toward an honest evaluation of his legacy.
His political opponents have every right to peacefully oppose his views: to criticize his words, protest his events, and organize peaceful assemblies against his philosophy.
That is the essence of a democracy—messy, contentious, and ultimately strengthened when harmful ideologies are met with principled non-violent and lawful resistance.
But here is where a crucial line must be drawn. An individual’s right to speak—even to say things that are repugnant to many—is a bedrock principle of a free and open society.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution serves as a shield, protecting the most unpopular and controversial speech from suppression, whether by individuals or the state, against non-citizens or citizens.
The assassin who pulled the trigger today sought to impose a lethal veto on Charlie Kirk’s right to liberty, and that is a line that cannot be allowed to be crossed, just as no one, citizen or not, should be arbitrarily detained for writing op-eds critical of a U.S. ally.
Those who disregard the clear provisions of the First Amendment, whether as private individuals or members of the ruling party or the party in opposition, make themselves enemies of the United States and its laws.
Bad ideas must be debated and defeated on the battlefield of public discourse, not with a bullet or through other forms of coercive violence by private actors or the state.
If violence is allowed to become a legitimate tool of political change, then the very foundations of any democratic society will crumble.
This is not a call to endorse Kirk's divisive rhetoric or his racist vitriol. It is a call to affirm the importance of free expression to the health of any republic. The very freedom that allowed Kirk to say what he said is the same freedom that protects the rights of those who opposed him.
When a society loses sight of that, when it allows itself to believe that violence is a justifiable response to speech it despises, all its members are in danger.
Radicals, whether on the left or the right, must be disavowed, whether they belong to the woke right or the woke left. They must not be allowed to gain legitimacy by turning the political realm into civil strife. The death of Charlie Kirk should be a wake-up call for everyone.
There must be a collective and vehement rejection of political violence in all its forms and a recommitment to the peaceful exchange of ideas, however difficult and uncomfortable that exchange may be.
The future of democracy depends on it.