Ugliness and dangerous rhetoric after Kirk's killing

The fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, 31, on camera, at a speaking event on a Utah college campus was not only a terrible tragedy; it is also a horrifying escalation in political violence in America. And, unless we tone down the temperature of the rhetoric around it, it could be the prelude to even darker days.

Kirk’s death caused particular shock waves on the right because of his unique importance to President Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again movement. With his clean-cut, boyish appearance and knack for vigorous debate, the father of two young girls was able to reach and galvanize young people — especially young men — as perhaps no one else on the right could. It’s likely that without him, Trump would not have gotten enough of the young adult vote to win last November.

Kirk’s campus activism has been controversial. While he has been praised for pushing back against the racist and antisemitic elements of the far right, it has also been noted that he himself drifted toward more extreme positions in the past year or two — such as calling for a moratorium on even legal immigration from the “Third World,” or saying that the passage of the Civil Rights Act had been a mistake.

In the wake of the assassination, some on the left have tried to suggest that Kirk was somehow to blame for his fate because he defended gun ownership or expressed views that can be reasonably regarded as demeaning toward various groups. Some social media posters have even gloated over his death. These are odious words. We shouldn’t even have to point out that in a free country, no person should be a target of violence for his or her opinions — or that we combat bad opinions with words, not bullets.

Yet the ugliness on the left has been more than matched by dangerous rhetoric on the right. There has been a rush to blame Kirk’s assassination on “the left,” collectively, or even on the entirety of the Democratic Party. There have been claims that political violence in America today comes almost entirely from the left and is directed at the right. There have been calls to shut down political organizations and nonprofits that supposedly promote violence against conservatives.

In his video message from the Oval Office, Trump also blamed “the radical left” for comparing Kirk and other right-wing figures to Nazis and criminals and instigating violence against them. He declared that “violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree” — and then went on to list only conservatives targeted for political violence.

Trump himself, of course, has a long history of demonizing his opponents as Communists, criminals or even “vermin.” And his pardon of the Jan. 6 rioters after his inauguration was certainly a troubling signal of approval for political violence on his side.

Political violence — or calls for it — must be unacceptable. Even the harshest criticism should never be equated with violence. Ironically, that was something Charlie Kirk, whatever his flaws, understood very well, refusing to blame critics of Israel for other people’s violent acts. His memory can be honored by remembering this principle.

Opinions expressed by Cathy Young, a writer for The Bulwark, are her own.

By Cathy Young

Cathy Young is a writer for The Bulwark.